Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 39 | 51 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
- 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 13 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 13 sockpuppet investigations
- 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 8 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 9 requests for RD1 redaction
- 34 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 13 requested closures
- 70 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 9 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Advice re: would we need a new admin?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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)
- Aye, thanks, all. I'll hang in as long as Levivich hangs in. :) —valereee (talk) 10:41, 18 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)
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)
- 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,
- 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)
- 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)
- El C, yeah that's uncle Allan, fled to the States in disgrace. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ooh, typo burn. Please don't sent the Pinkertons after me! El_C 21:36, 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.
- 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)
- Valereee, how would you have worded it? GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 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, I wrote that weeks ago. Do the diffs provided not support this interpretation? GPinkerton (talk) 02:52, 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, 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)
- I've told GP to stop with the additions at that page. Really disappointed. —valereee (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Welp, that didn't work. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 30 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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.
|
|---|
|
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 themselveselected 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, [1] and [2] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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 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)
- Would also support a case concerning Kurds in a broader way anywhere.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:52, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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: [3], 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
(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)
- You know, in normal articles, I'd agree. I'm not really a huge risk-taker. But based on the beginnings of this convo, where I was basically BEGGING for someone to come in and help because I felt like I was one admin throwing too much weight around and suggesting a creative solution that people questioned as a good idea but also no one wanted to help find a better idea, and based on the alternative solutions posted in the other thread that normally are great ideas but to anyone familiar with SK are clearly not workable (take the literally dozens of sources to RSN for a declaration of whether X trumps Y in each of probably hundreds of cases, or "everyone" -- that would be Levivich -- just ignore the POV-pushers (that would be three editors who've occasionally declared "consensus") who keep arguing and arguing and arguing that lower-quality sources should be included when multiple higher-quality sources are available. Because why? Because those lower quality sources say what the POV pushers want us to say. I mean, I guess the answer is to p-block them and keep them blocked. Or maybe p-block them and offer them a condition for unblocking: you may only suggest recent scholarship as a source at that article. I don't know, @El C. I'm just trying to keep Levivich from burning out, because if he does, we're going to have to just full-protect that article indefinitely and walk away. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like a good time to set up my Patreon account... Levivich harass/hound 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Valereee, the thing is that GS (or DS) articles are not normal pretty much by definition, so I'm not sure that distinction holds. And fully protecting articles indefinitely isn't really something we do on the project. Certainly, if certain contributors are editing disruptively, responding with p-blocks makes sense. And then it's fine setting whatever unblock conditions an admin sees fit. The problem arises when a sourcing requirement gets imposed as a page-level restriction pretty much in perpetuity, for everyone. Big difference there. El_C 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, though, upon starting to edit this article about a month ago, the first thing I had to do was to prove that Syrian Kurdistan existed. That proof is in Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#"Syrian Kurdistan", which anyone can see was many hours' work. (The preceding conversations are in the archives and go back months, and are clearly many dozens if not hundreds of hours of editor time.) This is kind of like starting to edit The Holocaust and the first thing you have to do is prove to other editors that The Holocaust happened. What the actual fuck? is my most-honest reaction to that.
- The first sentence of Syrian Kurdistan is now
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.
, sourced to five recent academic works. This very basic description took months to get into the article. Those five sources just happen to be books published by academic publishers in the last six years that Levivich has access to without having to spend any money. If you can believe it, that's how easy it is to source this basic statement, and how long it takes to get such a basic statement into the article. (Imagine if "The Holocaust happened during World War II" took months to get consensus for.) There is a ton of scholarship available about Syrian Kurdistan, and just some of it (not all) is listed at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Best sources for this article. - What's coming up is expansion of the article, including content (cited to those same academic sources and others) about Kurds having lived in Syria for a long time, migration of Kurds from Turkey to Syria in the early 20th century, and repression of Syrian Kurds by the Assads and Ba'ath party in the last half of the 20th century. If we can't get to "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria..." without massive disruption, then we are really in trouble when we start having to discuss these other, more complicated and controversial aspects of the topic. Levivich harass/hound 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, Levivich, I don't really like the Holocaust analogy.
Those five sources just happen to be books published by academic publishers in the last six years that Levivich has access to without having to spend any money
— also, what is up with referring to yourself in the 3rd person. Kinda weird. Oh well. Anyway, codifying some of the basics with a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) could be the way to go here. Then it pretty becomes a done deal, at least for a while. El_C 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)- I didn't like the Holocaust analogy either, when GPink first made it. After reading like 20 book chapters and journal articles over the past month, I've come around. For example, a Google Scholar search for "Syrian Kurdistan" returns over 1,000 results [4]. Suggestions that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist", or that Syrian Kurds don't exist, or that they're really migrants from Turkey (
...the Syrian Baathist regime's claim that most of the Kurds in Syria were refugees and migrants from Turkey...
[5])... this is racism (same source:...there was no place for Kurds within Syrian Arabism; the Kurds were either foreigners or traitors or both, and linguicide became policy. Baath plans soon extended to building an “Arab belt,” expelling Kurds living within 15 kilometers of Syria’s borders with Turkey and Iraq. The project was never completed, partly because not enough Arabs could be persuaded to settle. Syrian 'Arabization,' although no less malevolent or racist, was less effective than its Iraqi equivalent under Saddam Hussein (Allsopp, 24–28, 234 n. 3).
). The issue here is racist POV pushing and what's to be done about it. Levivich harass/hound 20:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)- Perhaps a better and closer analogy is the old canard that Palestinians are actually Jordanians because the West Bank used to be part of Jordan. An editor who argued this, or who suggested we not have an article called "Palestine", or if we do, we say in wikivoice that Palestine is an idea some people have but not a real place, or we say that "Palestine is the Jordanian-inhabited part of Israel"... none of that would fly for five minutes, and rightfully so. Nobody would tolerate a discussion about whether or not Palestine or Palestinians "exist". Levivich harass/hound 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, Levivich, I agree that that wouldn't be tolerated. But it also isn't realistic to approach editing through moral abstractions and equivalencies, because one is likely to end up dissapointed. The fact is that Palestine and Palestinians are far more apart of the general zeitgeist than the Kurds are, perhaps because the Palestinian diaspora has the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a singular-ish locus. Whereas, my sense is that the history of the Kurds in Syria is far more opaque. And even among Kurds, probably second least well-known, resting just above Kurds in Iran, with Kurds in Iraq being second most well known and Kurds in Turkey being most well known. But I digress, and I'm not sure going on about my vague impressions is that useful. Anyway, I'm just trying to be pragmatic about what is likely to be the path of least resistance. You may find it distasteful, even outright objectionable, to hold an RfC about the basics, but once that's done, then you can put the result at the top of the talk page (like in the form of a FAQ, for example), and then you don't need to deal with it. At least not for a long while. El_C 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying about an RFC. Like the one about whether the US supported the Shah or Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution, or whether communism is a type of totalitarianism or authoritarianism, or the one going on now about whether it should be "bantustan" or "enclave". "Distasteful" and "objectionable" maybe, but more to the point, a waste of time. In each case, burning up valuable editor time arguing the obvious in order to placate a clear minority of editors. But perhaps RFCs burn up less time than the alternatives. Levivich harass/hound 05:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, Levivich, I agree that that wouldn't be tolerated. But it also isn't realistic to approach editing through moral abstractions and equivalencies, because one is likely to end up dissapointed. The fact is that Palestine and Palestinians are far more apart of the general zeitgeist than the Kurds are, perhaps because the Palestinian diaspora has the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a singular-ish locus. Whereas, my sense is that the history of the Kurds in Syria is far more opaque. And even among Kurds, probably second least well-known, resting just above Kurds in Iran, with Kurds in Iraq being second most well known and Kurds in Turkey being most well known. But I digress, and I'm not sure going on about my vague impressions is that useful. Anyway, I'm just trying to be pragmatic about what is likely to be the path of least resistance. You may find it distasteful, even outright objectionable, to hold an RfC about the basics, but once that's done, then you can put the result at the top of the talk page (like in the form of a FAQ, for example), and then you don't need to deal with it. At least not for a long while. El_C 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better and closer analogy is the old canard that Palestinians are actually Jordanians because the West Bank used to be part of Jordan. An editor who argued this, or who suggested we not have an article called "Palestine", or if we do, we say in wikivoice that Palestine is an idea some people have but not a real place, or we say that "Palestine is the Jordanian-inhabited part of Israel"... none of that would fly for five minutes, and rightfully so. Nobody would tolerate a discussion about whether or not Palestine or Palestinians "exist". Levivich harass/hound 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't like the Holocaust analogy either, when GPink first made it. After reading like 20 book chapters and journal articles over the past month, I've come around. For example, a Google Scholar search for "Syrian Kurdistan" returns over 1,000 results [4]. Suggestions that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist", or that Syrian Kurds don't exist, or that they're really migrants from Turkey (
- Honestly, Levivich, I don't really like the Holocaust analogy.
- You know, in normal articles, I'd agree. I'm not really a huge risk-taker. But based on the beginnings of this convo, where I was basically BEGGING for someone to come in and help because I felt like I was one admin throwing too much weight around and suggesting a creative solution that people questioned as a good idea but also no one wanted to help find a better idea, and based on the alternative solutions posted in the other thread that normally are great ideas but to anyone familiar with SK are clearly not workable (take the literally dozens of sources to RSN for a declaration of whether X trumps Y in each of probably hundreds of cases, or "everyone" -- that would be Levivich -- just ignore the POV-pushers (that would be three editors who've occasionally declared "consensus") who keep arguing and arguing and arguing that lower-quality sources should be included when multiple higher-quality sources are available. Because why? Because those lower quality sources say what the POV pushers want us to say. I mean, I guess the answer is to p-block them and keep them blocked. Or maybe p-block them and offer them a condition for unblocking: you may only suggest recent scholarship as a source at that article. I don't know, @El C. I'm just trying to keep Levivich from burning out, because if he does, we're going to have to just full-protect that article indefinitely and walk away. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 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!
As El C said/implied above, Levivich's point here is becoming emotional and political rather than fact/evidence based. First, the blocking threats and blocks dropped by Valereee against Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby and myself really scared away/shut down at least another couple of users from contributing at the Talk page or here and limited the discussion at both fora. The weird policy invented by Levivich (and enforced by by Valereee) that only recent scholarship is to be used in that article further supports his politically-motivated POV-pushing behavior in this article. I am really surprised to see an editor with his history slide that way and make statements like the ones above (and in the article Talk page) about older scholarship and other things. I don't think anyone here disagrees that Kurds (just like any other people) deserve their equal rights and to be treated fairly. Well, the "Syrian Kurdistan" article is not about human rights or mistreatment of Kurds. It's about a land that Levivich has decided to show as Kurdish land as an undisputed fact, rather than Kurdish-populated/inhabited area with lots of other groups. He has removed most references to the history of this land during the 20th century. He talks about a racist Ba'athist plot and myth of Kurdish immigration to Syria, but scholarship (old and recent) does show that most Kurds came from Turkey. Here are some examples (sorry for the length, but this is my first comment here :)):
- Benjamin Thomas White (2017)[1]:
Armenians and other Christians escaping Anatolia; Kurdish insurgents evading the Turkish military; Assyrians fleeing Iraq: all took refuge in French mandate Syria, where they joined refugees who had arrived, before the French, during the First World War.
- David McDowall (2004) -a Kurdish studies expert -:[2]
The government believed that 'At the beginning of 1945, the Kurds began to infiltrate into al-Hasakeh governorate. They came singly and in groups from neighbouring countries, especially Turkey, crossing illegally along the border from Ras al'Ain to al-Malikiyya. Gradually and illegally, they settled down in the region along the border in major population centres such as Dirbasiyya, Amuda and Malikiyya. Many of these Kurds were able to register themselves illegally in the Syrian civil registers. They were also able to obtain Syrian identity cards through a variety of means, with the help of their relatives and members if their tribes. They did so with the intent of settling down and acquiring property, especially after the issue of the agricultural reform law, so as to benefit from land redistribution.' Official figures available in 1961 showed that in a mere seven year period, between 1954 and 1961, the population of al-Hasakah governorate had increased from 240,000 to 305,000, an increase of 27 per cent which could not possibly be explained merely by natural increase. The government was sufficiently worried by the apparent influx that it carried out a sample census in June 1962 which indicated the real population was probably closer to 340,000. Although these figures may have been exaggerated, they were credible given the actual circumstances. From being lawless and virtually empty prior to 1914, the Jazira had proved to be astonishingly fertile once order was imposed by the French mandate and farming undertaken by the largely Kurdish population.... A strong suspicion that many migrants were entering Syria was inevitable. In Turkey the rapid mechanisation of farming had created huge unemployment and massive labour migration from the 1950s onwards. The fertile but not yet cultivated lands of northern Jazira must have been a strong enticement and the affected frontier was too long feasibly to police it.
- Jordi Tejel (2020)[3]:
Nevertheless, Kurdish political parties have never set out to challenge Syrian national borders. In the 1920s, Kurdish activists turned their eyes toward Turkish Kurdistan, their region of origin.
- Storm (2005):
The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. These Kurds were later joined in Syria by a new large group that drifted out of Turkey throughout the interwar period during which the Turkish campaign to assimilate its Kurdish population was at it highest
.[4] - Tejel, Jordi (2009)[5]:
The mandatory authority's attitude towards Kurdish refugees evolved from one of rejection in 1925 to one of encouragement to settle in Jazira, and to a lesser extent in Kurd Dagh. If before 1927 there were at most 45 Kurdish villages in this region, by 1939, they numbered between 700 and 800 agglomerations of Kurdish majority
- French geographer Robert Montagne in Etienne de Vaumas (1956)[6]: (translated)
We are seeing an increase in village establishment that are either constructed by the Kurds descending from the mountains [Anatolia] to cultivate or as a sign of increasing settlement of Arab groups with the help of their Armenian and Yezidi farmers.
- John Hope Simpson (1939): [7]
under the conditions of peace and security established under the Mandatory authority, some 20,000 Kurds have settled in the Upper Jazira
- John McDowall (2005)[8]:
From 1920 onwards, however, many Kurdish tribespeople arrived, fleeing from the the Turkish armed forces particularly during the pacification of the tribes, 1925-1928. Although the precise number crossing the new international border is unknown, it was probably in the order of 25,000
- French geographer Pierre Rondot (1936) describes the area as follows:[9]
The mountain range of Armenia and Kurdistan falls rather sharply to the south, beyond Mardin, Nusaybin, and Jazirat ibn Umar, towards the steppes of Jazirah, domain of the Arab nomad. It is the border of two worlds: while the Arabs, great nomads whose existence is linked to that of the camel, could not enter the rocky mountain, the Kurds envy the edge of the steppe, relatively well watered and more easy to cultivate than the mountain, where they could push their sheep and install some crops.
Levivich has stripped the article of most of its its history. Levivich has removed French mandate archives census numbers for the area reported in a PhD dissertation under the pretext it is not peer-reviewed. Well, may be he doesn't know this, but a PhD from a respected university (This one is from Utrecht University) does pass through external examiners (at least two) that are more rigorous than many journal peer reviews. The other thing Levivich didn't know is that the advisor for the PhD candidate is Martin van Bruinessen, who is cited to support the "Syrian Kurdistan" term adoption (that's a different discussion, may be for another time). Levivich removed a map by Sir Mark Sykes (yes, the author of the Sykes–Picot Agreement) and another British map showing ethnic distribution of the area in question in the early 20th century. As you can see we have many reports (I can provide more) and maps from western sources (not Syrian, or Arab, or Turkish, etc.) that show the origin of most Syrian Kurds. It's not really a conspiracy/racism theory as promoted by some users. Still to be clear, the Syrian Baath party came to power in 1963, and used this immigration history as a pretext to discriminate against Kurds. Levivich is welcome to add this to the article, but the history and context are also very important and need to be discussed in DETAIL, using all RS available (such as the ones above). Finally, drawing comparisons with Israel/Palestine and Holocaust is really irrelevant and misleading. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Benjamin White. Refugees and the Definition of Syria, 1920–1939. Past and Present, no. 235(1), 141–178.
- ^ McDowall, David. Modern History of the Kurds, I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2004. pp. 473-474.
- ^ The Complex and Dynamic Relationship of Syria’s Kurds with Syrian Borders: Continuities and Changes. In: Cimino M. (eds) Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State. Mobility & Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.)
- ^ Storm, Lise (2005). "Ethnonational Minorities in the Middle East Berbers, Kurds, and Palestinians". A Companion to the History of the Middle East. Utrecht: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 475. ISBN 1-4051-0681-6.
- ^ Syria's Kurds: History, Politics and Society. London: Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-203-89211-4.
- ^ De Vaumas, Étienne. Population actuelle de la Djézireh. In: Annales de Géographie, t. 65, n°347, 1956. pp. 72-74; doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/geo.1956.14375.
- ^ Simpson, John Hope (1939). The Refugee Problem: Report of a Survey (First ed.). London: Oxford University Press. p. 458. ASIN B0006AOLOA.
- ^ McDowell, David (2005). A Modern History of the Kurds (3. revised and upd. ed., repr. ed.). London [u.a.]: Tauris. p. 469. ISBN 1-85043-416-6.
- ^ Pierre Rondot (1936). "Les tribus montagnardes de l'asie antérieures. Quelques aspects sociaux des populations kurdes et assyriennes". Bulletin d'études orientales. 6: 1–50.
- So, yeah. That's what it's like at that article talk. —valereee (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom
- NB now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan GPinkerton (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2021 (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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Update: Scheme changed. Some additional concerns about the randomization not fully working were brought up here. Given that plus this, I changed the flow so that the draft pages with a random string are no longer used at H:ITW (log out to see the new flow). They're still used at the sandboxes at the end of subsequent modules in the tutorial, but those have a small fraction of the traffic and (I'd think) a much lower percentage of IPs, so these pages should become much rarer going forward. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, a complaint about how a process works actually leads to a change in that process? Kudos, Sdkb, for finding a solution, even if it is a partial solution. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kiki Camarena RfC
I'm requesting that this RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena be re-closed. S Marshall's close stated that this text [6] did not have consensus for inclusion at Kiki Camarena; the close ignored available reliable sources and directly contradicted a clear RfC consensus:
- . 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.
- . Editors arguing for inclusion noted that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations
"extremely seriously"
(e.g. [7][8][9][10]), 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"
[11]. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse Close The closer ruled,
in several casesin 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, [12] 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)
- 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)
- The RfC was a simple one:
- Let me break down my reasoning in more detail for you, Levivich.
- 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.
- Half a dozen editors support him.
- 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.
- 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. 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)
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)
- 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 ≠
- 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)
- @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,
- 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)
- This "convention", which you have apparently manufactured for the purpose of attempting to defend your actions in this close, appears nowhere in the guidance around RfCs or general discussion closure. Five questions remain, which you continue to make no attempt to answer:
- 1. If you have strong opinions about the subject, which you double down on above (
Anyone who [doesn't share my preconceptions] has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever
), why did you seek to make a supervote by closing? You are totally unsuited to close this RfC. - 2. Why do you misrepresent the !votes for inclusion of Darouet's text by imagining additional questions for the RfC? The question was unambiguous, and the text can and will be refined in mainspace.
- 3. Why do you seek to make prescriptions on future development by imagining other additional questions, which experienced editors will ignore?
- 4. Why do you totally ignore multiple uninvolved editors collective views on which are the controlling policies (WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:NOR), but pick up on certain views each expressed by a single editor?
- 5. When WP:Discard indicates that only irrelevant arguments should be discarded
those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter
, why do you give no reasons whatsoever for discarding the views of the majority of editors? Cambial foliage❧ 09:48, 6 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)
- 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)
- I won't attempt to answer those questions at this stage. The only uninvolved sysops who've participated in this thread so far are Chetsford and Barkeep49, which means my close is mainly being reviewed by those who voted, and now the thread's sheer length defends it against being read. I will answer your questions if a single uninvolved sysop suggests overturning; otherwise I would prefer to encourage review of my decisions by keeping the thread as short as possible.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed the merits of the close so I have no idea there - I've only weighed in on what, in the abstract, I think makes a good close. However, and I admit to being a bit surprised I'm having to mention this to you of all people this, but any uninvolved editor (sysop or not) should have their voice considered when weighing consensus here about whether or not it was a good close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Arbcom election has taught me that meaningful engagement with your critics is optional.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- ANRFC is clear that
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
So if, as you state, you see discussing what you claim is a "rationale" as optional, then you are not to try to make any RfC closures at all. Cambial foliage❧ 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- I've discussed and justified it a lot, though, haven't I. I'm not required to answer your specific questions.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. You haven't justified it at all, and you haven't tried to. You've largely expended text pretending editors made different arguments to those in the discussion. The substantive issues are that you ignored policy and did as you please to make a supervote. That's what the points above reflect. You haven't addressed those; you claim you're unwilling to. Don't try to close RfCs. Cambial foliage❧ 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm required to explain my close, and I've done so. The rules don't say I have to engage with trap questions from vexatious questioners, nor am I required to stop closing RfCs on the request of aggrieved participants. You could seek consensus here to bar me from such closures, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're required to justify your closing rationale, not merely
explain [your] close
. No explanation of your pseudo-close/supervote was required: you had a strong opinion and felt it would be more effective formatted as a close rather than another vote. But your rationale – which based on your current contributions to this discussion we are forced to assume is non-existent – is required. The fact you desperately resort to characterising questions as "traps" suggests an inability to seriously answer them. Cambial foliage❧ 17:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- I think S Marshall has been quite diligent in meeting their obligation for accountability as a closer of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49 Based on what, precisely? There are five questions around policy errors above with no attempt at an answer. Even the most salient, the lack of any reason given for discarding the views of a majority of editors, has received no attempt at justification or explanation. The only attempt at justification of any aspect of the close is here, where they argue to Darouet:
the only editor who supported your exact wording was you
which is just flatly, obviously not true; andthere was substantial and well-argued opposition to it
. This "well-argued opposition" contains not one single reference to any source refuting the claims in the scholarly sources. Zero. And that fact is picked up on by multiple uninvolved editors. - It is astonishing that I need to draw attention, to a supposedly experienced "closer" and to an Arbcom member, to what User:Darouet already stated during the discussion in no uncertain terms:
The evaluation of historians and journalists is worth more than the speculations of editors here.
Closing editor considers that unsourced speculationwell-argued
; arguments reiterating WP:NOR are discarded. No attempt at explaining this decision is made, and the editor claims thatengagement with your critics is optional
, yet you argue that WP:ADMINACCT is diligently observed. Are we reading different policies? Cambial foliage❧ 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- I have stated several times that I have not, nor do I plan to, evaluate this close challenge on the merits. Here are among the edits where I see S Marshall fulfilling their responsibility to be accountable [13] [14]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49 Based on what, precisely? There are five questions around policy errors above with no attempt at an answer. Even the most salient, the lack of any reason given for discarding the views of a majority of editors, has received no attempt at justification or explanation. The only attempt at justification of any aspect of the close is here, where they argue to Darouet:
- I think S Marshall has been quite diligent in meeting their obligation for accountability as a closer of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're required to justify your closing rationale, not merely
- I'm required to explain my close, and I've done so. The rules don't say I have to engage with trap questions from vexatious questioners, nor am I required to stop closing RfCs on the request of aggrieved participants. You could seek consensus here to bar me from such closures, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. You haven't justified it at all, and you haven't tried to. You've largely expended text pretending editors made different arguments to those in the discussion. The substantive issues are that you ignored policy and did as you please to make a supervote. That's what the points above reflect. You haven't addressed those; you claim you're unwilling to. Don't try to close RfCs. Cambial foliage❧ 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've discussed and justified it a lot, though, haven't I. I'm not required to answer your specific questions.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed the merits of the close so I have no idea there - I've only weighed in on what, in the abstract, I think makes a good close. However, and I admit to being a bit surprised I'm having to mention this to you of all people this, but any uninvolved editor (sysop or not) should have their voice considered when weighing consensus here about whether or not it was a good close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse largely per Chetsford and ProcrastinatingReader. The crux of the debate was WP:RS (and possibly WP:FRINGE), and specifically whether the provided sourcing was of sufficient quality to support the claims in the proposed edit. Early comments were yes, but then the quality of the sourcing was challenged. Following the challenge, other editors opined that it should be included but with due weight given to the claim's refutation and weaknesses. Marshall's close accurately reflects this in its conclusion (paraphrased as) "include, but not this specific wording". As for the "don't work on it in article space": while it's not binding, common sense tells us that it's probably good advice. A lot of the "next steps" parts of the close could have been more clearly delineated from the "summary/binding" parts, but this isn't an exercise in copyediting so I'll refrain from rewriting it. In sum, there's consensus to include, but certainly no consensus to implement OP's proposed wording. Essentially, that's S Marshall's close, so I see no reason to overturn. — Wug·a·po·des 06:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: by a 2:1 margin, editors rejected the concept of including WP:OR text devoted to
refutation and weaknesses
of newspaper articles and academic publications. In the RfC, just one blog post was offered as a source to support that refutation [15]; another was proposed earlier on the talk page [16]. Are those the sources you have in mind, or are there others we've missed here? I don't even know how to begin drafting "refutation" text not based in sources: so far academics have only weighed in to support the allegations. As it is, it seems that attributing the allegations to the academics in question seems the best option, and that's exactly what most editors supported. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)- Per WP:NOTAVOTE I don't really care what the margin is, and bludgeoning this discussion with the same unpersuasive claims isn't going to win me over. As you'll see at WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources--in fact, qualifying or attributing suspicious or fringe claims is our policy. While you attempt to impugn it here, this source was written by Elaine Shannon, correspondent and investigative journalist for Newsweek and Time, who Harper Collins refers to as an expert in terrorism, crime, and espionage ([17]), and who has covered these topics for almost 50 years. Meanwhile, ProcrastinatingReader analyzes the provenance of your sources above, saying:
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 [claim] 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.
As Location says below,WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research".
So yeah, I'm not drinking the kool-aid on this one, and it's quite obvious that you're trying to play up the quality of your sources to try and get your preferred text into the article. That you "don't even know how to begin drafting refutation text" is not my problem. If you seriously can't do it, then don't--other editors will get on just fine without you. But misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard isn't going to win you fans. — Wug·a·po·des 00:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- It's not "analyzing" the provenance of the sources to simply lie about them, as is done above and which you repeat. Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Not 1 book review, that's a lie: two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals, both of which endorse the book's author's findings on this exact point. The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Repeating another editor's lies about the sourcing won't make them any less flimsy or demonstrably inaccurate. What you say about
misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard
is entirely correct – advice you would be wise to follow. It's true thatit's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources
. But in this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research, as was pointed out by multiple uninvolved editors. Furthermore, university presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources" simply because you deem them so on the basis of nothing in particular. Cambial foliage❧ 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- First, I suggest you be careful about throwing the word "lie" around, especially when making a point as silly as this one:
Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin
. Contrary to your assertion, a person can be both unknown and a professor emeritus. You don't suddenly become known because you retired, and there are plenty of unknown professors. If, however, you can name every emeritus professor from memory I would be quite impressed. Second, stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion. For example, you bring up thatThe claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text
. Well yeah, obviously. No one is claiming Darouet's text was made up as a hoax. The point I understand PR to be making, and which I agree with, is that you both are being hyperbolic about the quality of sourcing. Third, while you admit thatIt's true that it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources
, you then immediately start trying to back track and explain why we should make an exception for you this time. It seems that your problem is thatin this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research
. Let's compare that with what WP:NOR actually says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". So either you don't understand the original research policy or you are willfully misrepresenting it; I'll assume you just didn't read that part of the policy. Finally, and to get to the heart of your comment, you are correct to sayuniversity presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources"
but only because they aren't sources at all. They are publishers of sources. While the publisher is helpful in evaluating the reliability of sources, you cannot simply point to the publisher and claim a source is beyond question. To wit, you are making claims about the quality of your sources that show you either do not know about academic publishing or are misrepresenting the sources (and again, I'll assume you just don't know). You saytwo reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals
which sounds impressive if you don't know anything about book reviews. In fact, book reviews are not peer reviewed, so including that descriptor is misleading---sure the journal articles are peer reviewed but the things you want to cite are plainly not peer reviewed. As you'll see in the Chronicle of Higher Education article I just linked you to, book reviews are not held in particularly high regard by academics, and while they are certainly reliable sources, waving them around like a talisman to ward of criticism just isn't going to get you far with people who understand the academic publishing process. They are in fact minor, and as PR rightly points out, they do little more than repeat the book's hypothesis without significant evaluation. And certainly neither book review claims that the CIA assassination hypothesis is an unassailable fact. To quote Freije (2016) "The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial". That evaluation doesn't get you as far as you seem to think it does, and it's certainly not an "endorsement" in any meaningful sense of the word. Circumstantial evidence is that which requires inference to come to a particular conclusion, and so scholars in the field---even the authors of the book themselves---note that the claims are not supported by any direct evidence or strong enough to preclude reasonable doubt. And that's what we see: reasonable doubt from not only our editors but from experts in the field like Elaine Shannon. As participants in the discussion argue and as S Marshall rightly concludes in his close, in this situation WP:DUE forbids us from offering only one side of this debate as if it is fact. As others have told you, this isn't the place to reargue the RfC, and so I'm not going to spend more time offering source analysis because if I cared about this topic I would have commented in the RfC. To head off further assumptions: I have read the discussion, I have skimmed the sources (I even have online access to the book through my university), and I have read Wikipedia's policies. Given all that, I maintain that S Marshall's close reaches the correct conclusion that the allegations of CIA assassination should be included alongside skepticism of that claim given both the discussion and project-wide consensus at WP:DUE. — Wug·a·po·des 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)- Pretty much as you say, Wug; exaggerated sourcing. Some more examples: this book review mentions the CIA once. It is being used to verify:
Some journalists and historians have concluded that the killings of Buendía and Camarena were linked, since both discovered that the US Central Intelligence Agency was using Mexican and Central American drug traffickers to import "cocaine into the U.S. and [facilitate] the movement of arms to the contras."
yet the source does not appear to do so. Further, as with this book review by the same author, it relies upon the Wisconsin professor's book (the first listed source). So 2 of the listed sources are book reviews of the first listed source, both reviews written by the same person. They're being used to fluff up the importance of the first, not as independent sourcing. - As for CF, if you really believe your sourcing is so convincing what you had to do was quite simple: rather than dump a bunch of links to sources, use {{tq}} and quote from each source the text which supports what you're trying to say with it. The people who are on the side of the sources don't need to spend paragraphs explaining their opinion; all they need to do is cite the source, provide a quote, and let the source speak for itself. That generally helps, although probably not in this case since the sources themselves are dubious. The entire argument rests upon a source by Bartley, pretty much. As some opposers in the RfC said, it would best be used with attribution. In my experience, almost every time people WP:CITEBOMB on a controversial point without specific quotes, or without links that easily verify the text, it's very suspicious and makes me even more inclined to check each source. Whenever I close an RfC I am very skeptical of low quality/non-evidence-based votes, and give far more weight to votes which analyse the sourcing in either direction. If only those refuting the sourcing choose to do so, as TheTimesAreAChanging did, then so be it; WP:NOTAVOTE applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pretty much as you say, Wug; exaggerated sourcing. Some more examples: this book review mentions the CIA once. It is being used to verify:
- First, I suggest you be careful about throwing the word "lie" around, especially when making a point as silly as this one:
- It's not "analyzing" the provenance of the sources to simply lie about them, as is done above and which you repeat. Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Not 1 book review, that's a lie: two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals, both of which endorse the book's author's findings on this exact point. The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Repeating another editor's lies about the sourcing won't make them any less flimsy or demonstrably inaccurate. What you say about
- Per WP:NOTAVOTE I don't really care what the margin is, and bludgeoning this discussion with the same unpersuasive claims isn't going to win me over. As you'll see at WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources--in fact, qualifying or attributing suspicious or fringe claims is our policy. While you attempt to impugn it here, this source was written by Elaine Shannon, correspondent and investigative journalist for Newsweek and Time, who Harper Collins refers to as an expert in terrorism, crime, and espionage ([17]), and who has covered these topics for almost 50 years. Meanwhile, ProcrastinatingReader analyzes the provenance of your sources above, saying:
- @Wugapodes: by a 2:1 margin, editors rejected the concept of including WP:OR text devoted to
- Comment. I have been indirectly referenced here by other participants in the RfC. The idea that that I am an "involved editor" who has "already spent years arguing against various versions of the text in question" is overstated in that I had only one minor edit to the article in 2015 prior to responding to a discussion regarding the reliability of a book that Darouet suggested shortly before the RfC. The material from that book that Darouet wants to insert into the article relies upon a number of dubious sources to makes a WP:REDFLAG claim that most recently has been embraced by QAnon supporters; it propagates the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena to cover-up a drug smuggling operation to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. For what it's worth, various federal investigations long ago rejected the CIA drug smuggling claims, the largest homicide investigation ever conducted by the DEA identified Mexican drug traffickers as Camarena's murderers, and the head of the DEA rejected the involvement of the CIA in Camarena's murder as a "fable" that "has no basis in fact". WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research".
- Darouet's RfC was poorly phrased without any recommendation for specific text to be included. Per WP:BRD, S Marshall enjoined us to draft the additions and discuss them, but no one has even tried this. - Location (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC proposed specific text [18]. As to the QAnon link - doesn't this claim come from a single blog post [19], referencing a comment the author found on facebook? Historians and journalists have been covering the allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death for many years before QAnon even existed. Linking this to QAnon is deeply confused at best, and dishonest at worst. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 11 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 [20][21][22] arguing against various versions of the text in question [23], which is what necessitated the RfC [24] in the first place. Non-involved editors supported inclusion of the text by a 5:1 margin (five [25][26][27][28][29] vs 1 [30]), 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.
- 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 [31].
- Those allegations remained in the article until exactly two years ago, when they were removed [32].
- 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 [33]. I re-wrote the content to fit with what historians have to say on the matter.
- After nearly two years of talk page argument over whether ordinarily reliable sources can be reliable in this case [34] and having to deal with endless IP proxying or sockpuppetry [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44], I launched an RfC to just resolve the issue once and for all.
- Uninvolved editors supported including the well-referenced text by a 5:1 margin.
- 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 [45], 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)
- Ah, I see. Thank you for saying that
- 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)
- 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)
- Are you saying you believe that the actual outcome of that RFC was no consensus? You seem to have indicated it above, as well (
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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 [46] 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 [47] 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 [48]. 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)
- Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs) was indeffed by Izno at 02:53, 5 January 2021 for BLP violations. FWIW I support an WP:AP2 topic ban (not AP32?) but perhaps this could just be closed if people don't want to discuss. If the user is unblocked and repeats their attitude, would someone please let me know so I can AP2 topic ban them per the discretionary sanctions, although I think others would beat me to it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Groan, somehow I missed seeing Izno's post above. I'm sure it wasn't there five minutes ago... Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Schodingers post! --Izno (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support in case the indef is ever lifted but maintain indef block because I just read the discussion following their block and wow. This is one of the most blatant cases of WP:NOTHERE (if we're being charitable) and/or WP:COMPETENCE (if we're not) I've seen in a very long time if ever.- The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support ArgleBargle has been concerning in the AP2 area for some time; if they come back to Wikipedia they should edit in some other topic area for some time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Sadly, I've seen ArgleBargle saying some pretty questionable things regarding AP32, and Wtmitchell and I have been discussing with them a lot on the Electoral Count Act page and I can totally see the arguments for WP:NOTHERE based on that. I've also looked at their conduct on the talk page and the repeated warnings made to them regarding AP32 and they've heeded absolutely none of the warnings. Sadly, even if they're editing in good faith, their actions seem to have wreaked havoc on Wikipedia and that simply cannot be tolerated. I propose a one year ban at the very least, and an indefinite topic block from AP32. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just to add on, ArgleBargle's questionable POV/BLP edits literally drew the attention of the President of the United States. Seeing this just furthers the argument for an indefinite ban, unfortunately. Even if some might argue that the edit in question wasn't in violation of Wikipedia policies (it smacks of an NPOV violation to me but that's just my opinion), it shows the real potential for harm resulting from this editing. Unfortunately, it's clear to me that the indefinite ban is warranted, and shouldn't be lifted for a while. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
How do we feel about accounts that only seek deletion?
Like this one: [49]
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 [50] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing article deletion as the main thrust of your editing, no matter how much my inclusionist blood wants to scream otherwise. My only theoretical concern would be whether such a focus is masking a hidden WP:SPA or
WP:Involved(meant WP:COI) agenda - i.e. do the deletion requests have a pattern serving covert purpose to remove commercial competition, delete subjects that are politically inconvenient, etc. To be absolutely clear, I have ZERO reason to believe this is the case here; it is simply a possibility of this kind of editing that might rear its head.VanIsaacWScont- The listed user account was just an example to demonstrate that accounts with pure deletion activity exist, to anchor the discussion. You've outlined a scenario where this kind of activity would be used as a specific attack vector on a particular topic. However, it could be used more generally as well, by someone who just wants to do harm and doesn't care about the topics. Samsara 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Admin introducing source restriction
Admin Valereee has introduced a source restriction at the Syrian Kurdistan article:[51][52]
According to herself, she doesn't know if she has the authority to introduce such a restriction: [53]
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- "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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [54], 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:[55]. 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)
- 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)
- 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:[55]. 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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: [54], 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)
- 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 yourfor 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 wasintentional 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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, 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: [56], 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)
- (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:
- @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)
- 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)
- 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. [57] 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)
- NB now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan GPinkerton (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Reconsideration of TBAN
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [58] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment While it got mixed reviews at RSN, I believe the arguments made here and the negative comments at RSN are compelling. I therefor have nominated Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America for deletion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Username policy and blocking
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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)
- 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)
- 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 ([59], [60], [61]). 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)
- 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)
.jpg)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have no objection to that and was half-debating doing it myself. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 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)
- The point of closing a discussion is to provide a summary of the consensus therein, not to pontificate with your own incorrect views on procedure. Can someone re-close it without Swarm's personal comments please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- To add, my understanding of the discussion is essentially a reaffirmation of the consensus at Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames: avoid biting newcomers and stay well enough alone unless they've edited or the name's mere presence is a danger. Neither seems to be the case here and so the user was unblocked. We don't need to have time-wasting discussions on this because it's already our documented community practice. — Wug·a·po·des 01:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I closed with a summary of the consensus here, but it's nothing new nor prohibited to include advice to the community in a closing statement, and I don't think I said anything particularly egregious. Still, to avoid even further dramamongering in what is such a patently uncontentious thread, I will strike that part of my close, if it will really make you guys feel better. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JayBeeEll
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KingBaudoin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Congo Free State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- It's rarely a good idea to call someone paranoid in an edit summary, but this editor's insistence that anyone who reverts his edits is engaged in censorship to protect Leopold II may qualify. The OP clearly has a POV regarding Belgium/Congo topics, and may not be able to edit collaboratively on that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor It might be relevant to note that KingBaudoin has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia from the Dutch versions of Congo Free State and Leopold II for the exact same behaviour he's been displaying on the English Wikipedia (edit warring to insert the same file into those articles, unability to edit collaboratively and throwing around accusations of left wing/Cultural Marxist censorship). Lennart97 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @KingBaudoin: JayBeeEll did not call you a "whiny little bitch", I did. Not to say I'm proud of it, but I'll own up to it and ask that you take care not to insinuate that a different editor said that. Three different editors have reverted you, which means you clearly do not have consensus to add the file to the article. Make your case at the article talk page, and it would do you well to avoid calling people Marxists or censors just because they disagree with you. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Um, nobody thought it might be a good idea to notify me about this thread? Anyhow, anyone who looks at the OP's behavior (including the previous thread) will quickly come to the correct conclusion. --JBL (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, stop being such a whiny little—nevermind. Levivich harass/hound 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
kind of typical isent it, i report that some guy is slandering me, and that another guy also slanderd me, and that they are above the rules in wikipedia world, and in response: the entire Leopold II/Belgium/congo brigade from even other language encypclopedias that i had an issue with in the past over "censorhip" is here to call out that i am a bad person in respons... you try to remove a pamflet about Leopold II, and Congo Free State, from the pages of Leopold II and Congo Free State, just as you tried to remove the speech from King baudouin, because you want to hold power over the subject, because you want to keep the narative, and you want to protect Leopold II and Belgium, and some of you because you want to protect Belgium by keeping the narative that the Flemish independance movement are bunch of evil racists, and this poster proofs the oposite, anyway, you all have the same enemy, that is truth!
By the way the Belgian wikipedia is FUNDED by the Belgian Monarchy
Also, for non-Belgians, you have to understand the situation in Belgium, the country is about to collapse politically and the Monarchy is the only thing keeping Belgium together at the moment, so the royalist will do anything to shut up critical voices about French speaking suppression on Flemish people in the past, and about a very significant part of people in Belgium that favor Flemish independence, and they do this by keeping a narrative that Flemish are untrustworthy nazi collaborators, racists, fascists and so on, you know, the usual slandering that you would hear from Far left extremists, and that is the real reason why they dont want a poster like that on an important page of Congo Free state and Leopold II, because it breaks the entire narrative.
To give you an example, a while ago there was a big protest of pro-Flemish independance nationalists, 15.000 people came to this event, peaceful event, no material damage, or police violence problems or anything like that, from those 15.000 people, they found 1 crazy guy with some shady racist believes, the media which are very anti-flemish and Pro-Belgian in Belgium then zoom in on that 1 crazy person, and make it as if the enire 15.000 people are like that one guy, we are used to this kind of propaganda and fake naratives here in Belgium, so yes we can also instantly detect it.
And yes the flemish independance movement is concervative, not as in an American sense of the word "very Religious" because the majority of people in Belgium and Flanders is atheist, but concervative as in Liberal and Not being Green Left Socialist, the Belgian media, The French speaking part of Belgium and also the Monarchy which one of the princeses is even a prominent member of extintion rebellion is mostly Green Left and/or Socialist.
KingBaudoin (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you should print out a big "BLOCK ME" sign, it will have the same effect as what you're doing but with less time wasted. --JBL (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
yes ofcourse, keep the power, keep the narative! everything else is wrong and evil! KingBaudoin (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, user KingBaudoin doesn’t participate in the started topic, but reverts again and claims first an opinion poll should be held. I think a partially block is necessary here as well. Encycloon (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We already had a very long discussion on the dutch wikipedia about this subject, wich btw you you are moderator on, and yes ofcourse you have different rules then me, nothing new, but, you stoped the conversation and then whent an started deleting the content with 10 different reasons every time you reverted the edit, we kan discuss forever, as you are the moderator you will always win.. kind of like in Belgium, where some people have more rights then others.. or like in Belgian Congo.. KingBaudoin (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think importing the conflict on the Dutch WP is quite helpful; see also WP:BATTLE. Encycloon (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
it is exactly the same subject with even the same people, how can you not import it Encycloon (talk? KingBaudoin (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- For example: I am no admin here (though this is irrelevant there as well) and the English users involved didn't read the Dutch discussion. (And I didn't stop the conversation there, though this is not relevant here.) --Encycloon (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok i understand, thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think the following links may be relevant here: WP:NPOV, WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:FREESPEECH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:RGW. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appeal topic ban (of User:Loves Woolf1882)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- * 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
- * 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 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).
- * 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."
- I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-
- * 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)
- * 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 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)
- At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I think you underestimate how contentious that area is right now and how hostile it is to new editors. There are organized sock farms pushing particular POVs that admins and checkusers have been combatting, resulting in an arbitration committee case barely a month ago. I do not share your confidence that you would have been thanked. Personally, I would expect you to be CU blocked quite quickly given the known sockpuppet problem there and your previous CU block in that topic area. — Wug·a·po·des 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Wugapodes, you said it yourself, you don't know "the topic area that well"; but if someone who knows the topic area reviewed my last 1 month edits, I'm sure they would thank me (I have been extremely careful and productive). About my mistakes from 2 years ago, (which I accepted responsibility for); it is not fair to say I will repeat them without me doing no such thing towards them. And I’ve already explained why I won’t ever, on my unblock appeal back then. But this seem to be the logic that got me banned now. Just because others are having problems there, it is not fair to ban me without me doing something worthy of a ban (or even something wrong). Not everyone is the same.Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
you don't know "the topic area that well"
I don't know the topic certainly, but I do know the administrative problems in the area. See User talk:Wugapodes#Administrators' newsletter – January 2021 and WP:HORN.if someone who knows the topic area reviewed my last 1 month edits, I'm sure they would thank me
Then why has that not happened in the last month? Instead, someone familiar with the topic area reported you to ANI. — Wug·a·po·des 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Wugapodes, you said it yourself, you don't know "the topic area that well"; but if someone who knows the topic area reviewed my last 1 month edits, I'm sure they would thank me (I have been extremely careful and productive). About my mistakes from 2 years ago, (which I accepted responsibility for); it is not fair to say I will repeat them without me doing no such thing towards them. And I’ve already explained why I won’t ever, on my unblock appeal back then. But this seem to be the logic that got me banned now. Just because others are having problems there, it is not fair to ban me without me doing something worthy of a ban (or even something wrong). Not everyone is the same.Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I think you underestimate how contentious that area is right now and how hostile it is to new editors. There are organized sock farms pushing particular POVs that admins and checkusers have been combatting, resulting in an arbitration committee case barely a month ago. I do not share your confidence that you would have been thanked. Personally, I would expect you to be CU blocked quite quickly given the known sockpuppet problem there and your previous CU block in that topic area. — Wug·a·po·des 01:35, 6 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)
- My only comment would be that the TBAN discussion over at ANI (closed today) only seems to have had three participants (four including the closer), and while the three all seemed to be in favor of a topic ban there really didn’t seem to be extensive discussion. I’m also not a fan of the circumvention of the ACDS notice requirements here (as noted by Drmies in the original discussion) by just imposing a community TBAN with identical scope. If there had been widespread participation and some other special circumstances I could understand something running in parallel to the ACDS issue... but where the sole issue is something squarely (and I mean squarely) within an existing ACDS regime it kind of defeats the purpose of the Committee managing and exercising its own jurisdiction over a topic area. I think this TBAN should be overturned and the discussion sent to WP:AE when OP violates (not “if” since I think from everything here it’s clear OP will violate). Yes, yes, it sounds like meaningless process. But there’s a reason why ACDS regimes require notice. Circumvention by a few people is just a bad idea and invites all sorts of gaming the system going forward. If the community is going to permit the Committee continue to exercise the nearly-unfettered discretion it has to impose DS regimes, then we have to work with that system even when it’s a minor inconvenience. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note from closing admin since we're here I wanted to provide some thoughts with a bit more candor than I would in a closing statement. First, I'd be entirely open to reducing the length of the ban but certainly not to 1 week. The OP made two suggestions for the TBAN length: one month and six months. LindsayH said 30 days, and Drmies wanted longer than 30 days so I picked the only length mentioned that was more than 30 days. Is it the best? Probably not, but I also don't want to start second guessing discussion participants. Second, my initial reaction when reading the thread was surprise at how accommodating all the participants were (a good surprise, not a bad one). Having read (but apparently not participated; I thought I had) in LW's unblock request ~a month ago, my understanding was that the community extended an unblock per WP:SO and WP:ROPE, and this report seemed like a repeat of the behavior that led to the block 18-ish months ago. So while I agree we shouldn't be dredging up old news, how this behavior relates to the previous behavior is relevant, and I was happily surprised that this didn't end up in a re-block. I hinted at this in the closing statement and made a point to say as much when LW came to my talk page asking for clarification. Third, I don't think there's any harm in community sanctions overlapping arbcom sanction regimes--the community is superior to arbcom in any event so there's nothing in their jurisdiction that isn't in ours. If anything, having a standard definition of "Horn of Africa" is a good thing because it prevents confusion and accidental ban violations which is why I chose that definition instead of making up my own. While there may not have been many participants, they were unanimous and no one objected. Regardless of whether there is an AC/DS regime in place, I really see no way to read that discussion without coming to a conclusion that the community does not support LW editing Horn of Africa articles right now. — Wug·a·po·des 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The elephants in the room are (1) how few participants there were, and (2) that the participants voiced an intent to circumvent the ACDS notice procedure. I just can't see that as legitimate under the circumstances. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Ban discussions have a minimum duration (I know because I was the one who proposed we increase the minimum discussion time), but we do not have a minimum participation requirement. So unless there's a policy I'm missing, that elephant isn't a reason to close against the stated preferences of the participants. (2) AC/DS governs when admins may unilaterally place sanctions. This was not a unilateral action; there was nothing to circumvent. If LW had been aware, someone could have acted unilaterally, but since they were not aware we had to have a community discussion to figure out what to do (which we did). Just because an admin cannot act unilaterally does not mean the community cannot act. I just can't wrap my head around why a template should allow me to impose just about any sanction I want, but after a 5 day discussion where the editor was notified and participated along with others I somehow cannot implement the consensus. If that's what the consensus here winds up being, fine, but it strikes me as quite wonky and against the point of WP:NOTBURO. — Wug·a·po·des 02:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The elephants in the room are (1) how few participants there were, and (2) that the participants voiced an intent to circumvent the ACDS notice procedure. I just can't see that as legitimate under the circumstances. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that the participates commented only BEFORE I responded to the unjustified accusations made against me. I spent time to answer for every accusation (with Diff) and so on, since I did nothing wrong worthy of this ban or its report. However, none of the participants commented after my response, and not even the closing admin read it (as he said it was a wall of text). And many say they don’t know the topic area that well. But what can I do other than answer all unjustified accusations against me, point by point? Anyhow, please consider overturning or at least significantly reducing the length of this ban (for sake of fairness).Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
not even the closing admin read it (as he said it was a wall of text)
I did read it. My reference to WP:WALLOFTEXT was (like Walt above) a warning to you about how other people will interpret it and a probable explanation of why no one engaged with you. I disregarded it not because I didn't read it but because it was largely nonsensical and seemed like you didn't read the OP with any charity or objectivity. You largely linked to the same discussions boud did, so prior participants saw exactly the conversations you wanted them to. What you seem incredulous of is that someone could read those discussions and think you did a less-than-perfect job. WaltClip already gave you a brief overview of why your response is unpersuasive, but to drive the point home, let me expand on why I found it to be of little value in determining consensus.Boud's OP was largely unconcerned with your POV, yet much of your reply focused on how you didn't violate NPOV. In fact, Boud went out of their way to say that your POV was a benefit to the articles:a topic ban to protect other editors and to protect the consistency of content with Wikipedia guidelines should be weighed against the user's positive role in diversifying the POVs in the articles.
so right off the bat most of what you said was a complete mischaracterization of the issue. What Boud did complain about was how your discussion style (see WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:RGW, and WP:TE) was harming the ability of editors to have discussions, build consensus, and describe issues consistently across articles as well as how source characterization issues have persisted despite the unblock. With regard to the first point, in the month since you've been unblocked you contributed over 63% of the text at Talk:Mai Kadra massacre accounting for 73kB--twice more than the next highest contributor; you contributed 66% of the text at Talk:Tigray conflict with almost 77kB, over 5 times more than the next highest contributor. On its face it looks like you're bludgeoning the discussions and looking at the actual talk pages makes that even more apparent. Finding a talk page discussion where you gave a response with fewer than 3 paragraphs is rare, so it's no wonder why so many other editors have stopped participating. But I digress, back to the OP.Boud reports that the neutrality of your edits at Tigray conflict were challenged, and looking at the discussion, the challenge was supported by a second editor. Your response to that 1kB complaint and concurrence was an 11kB, multiparagraph response that--among other issues--contained a borderline personal attack against another editor who hadn't even commented in that discussion yetSince User:KZebegna (with all due respect) is a very harsh critic of TPLF and oppose it to the extreme, he believe there is still more room left to shift the article far to Amhara extremists side
. On that same article, Boud reports that you fail to grasp why using scare quotes around "invaders" may be non-neutral, and in your response at ANI you continue to not get the point, completely ignoring the connotations of the quotes, and just parroting the fact that a source did it which if anything proves Boud's point.At Mai Kadra massacre, you claim Boud was hypocritically faulting you for something they thanked you for, but in doing so completely misrepresent the discussion you yourself link to. I'm not even sure the diff you included was correct since it showed Boud disagreeing with you---I think you meant this comment where Boud saysSo you happen to have been right. But you didn't show that you're right. I've done the work to show that you're right (on this particular point).
along with two other pragraphs saying how your discussion behavior has been a problem. Among the complaints Boud raises with your sources at that page, they point out that the guideline WP:PUBLISHED requires videos be archived. In your response at ANI, despite linking to that very guideline and claiming you understand it, you sayit's not a requirement to archive them first
despite the guideline saying quite clearlyan archived copy of the media must exist
. To support your point you say that the unratified essay WP:CITEVIDEO has no such text and so you don't have to comply. WP:PUBLISHED supercedes WP:CITEVIDEO (see WP:CONLEVEL and the text at the top of WP:CITEVIDEO that saysThis page is not ... one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines
. Regardless of the actual merits of the sources, you clearly do not fully grasp our sourcing policies because in your response to a complaint about it you continue to misrepresent our guidelines.Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn't find a place in your response where you addressed Boud's concerns about your conduct at Awol Allo. Boud's report didn't even include their concerns at Talk:Awol Allo about you introducing copyright violations, not sure why, but let's ignroe it for now and focus on your talk page conduct there which was the point of the report. In response to concerns about unacceptable synthesis, you sayBut LOOOOOOL, SYNTH with WP:SYNTH policy reference itself.
which Boud, in that discussion, rightly points out as appearing to be mocking and unhelpful. The thrust of your point isn't even correct as you're trying to say Boud's interpretation of SYNTH is incorrect because it's synthesis itself, but if you scroll up to the top of that page it saysThis policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content
so again we see you don't understand one of wikipedia's core content policies.I don't want to keep going with your response. When asking for an unblock you said you understood these policies, and yet here I am, explaining them to you again, weeks after Boud quite patiently tried to explain them to you multiple times. I thought I was being kind a day or so ago by refraining from being direct and candid. Instead, it seems my restraint allowed you to continue thinking that everyone except you is wrong, so mea culpa for not nipping this in the bud. I spend a great deal of time closing discussions, and have even written an essay on how the timing of comments can or cannot help us determine consensus, so I actually find it quite insulting that you would think I would sanction you without giving you the courtesy of reading your response. I read what you wrote and I thought it was hand-wringing from a recently unblocked editor trying to save their skin. It convinced me that the report had merit, and that the editors in participation properly considered the matter at hand. In fact, it made me believe the proposed sanctions were too lenient considering your recent unblock for very similar behavior, but it was my philosophical belief in closer-restraint that stopped me from re-blocking you on the spot and instead going with what the participants wanted. With the candor out of the way, I want to end on a positive note. I don't like sanctioning editors, and I mean what I said on my talk page that you are in fact a benefit to the encyclopedia. These are all newbie mistakes, and we all have made them. No one expects perfection. You're a perfectly fine person, and I hope to see you continue editing. The problem here is hubris; you need to acknowledge that you don't in fact know everything and still have stuff to learn about Wikipedia. If you were to take Lindsay's advice, or my advice, or Nil's advice to step back from this topic area and learn the ropes in a friendlier environment, then I'm certtain you'll learn a lot and grow. — Wug·a·po·des 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that the participates commented only BEFORE I responded to the unjustified accusations made against me. I spent time to answer for every accusation (with Diff) and so on, since I did nothing wrong worthy of this ban or its report. However, none of the participants commented after my response, and not even the closing admin read it (as he said it was a wall of text). And many say they don’t know the topic area that well. But what can I do other than answer all unjustified accusations against me, point by point? Anyhow, please consider overturning or at least significantly reducing the length of this ban (for sake of fairness).Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Decline appeal - walls of text aside, the ban had consensus in the ANI thread. Loves Woolf1882 was lucky that it originally archived without action. By continuing the dispute, Lone Woolf demonstrated the wisdom of the consensus in the ANI thread. In this appeal, they again demonstrate the wisdom of the consensus and the correctness of the close. Nothing herein suggests the ban is no longer necessary. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich harass/hound 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Decline and extend tban - as a non-admin active on AN/I this past month, and somewhat familiar with the behavior of Woolf as shown therein, I believe Wugapodes made a good, but difficult, call in this instance. Given their behavior, I'm surprised they've not been handed a block of some sort. Regardless, I wonder if we're dealing with a different situation entirely. Their comments, like those on Wug's page, and this one, make me wonder. It seems very difficult for them to accept criticism or sanction. They still seem to be playing the victim in this situation. I believe their tban should be lengthened to 6 months minimum. Additionally, I believe they should consider themselves on thin ice regarding behavior and grace. (Non-administrator comment) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm inclined to defer to the admin's opinion on enforcement of WP:AC/DS. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Loves_Woolf1882 is the original discussion and the only defense (there and here) is that the diffs are old. Loves_Woolf1882 has continued (almost exclusively) to edit in the Horn of Africa topic area. I don't see any specific diff that justifies a ban, but they are tendentious in the area, and I'd encourage Woolf to edit other articles before appealing their TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Advice which has already been given and ignored. Sadly. I would have to say that it's not the diffs themselves which concern me so much as the deafness to any suggestions of behavioural change. I do not, unlike Gwennie, consider it a case of competence, rather willfulness; happy days, LindsayHello 19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- For the reasons i mention above, i say decline appeal. In fact, though i originally suggested thirty days, as Wugapodes notes above, i now recommend that the topic ban not be lifted until the appellant has shown some evidence of willingness to listen to and abide by community standards by editing in an area other than the Horn of Africa; once that happens, i'd be more inclined to think about lifting the ban; happy days, LindsayHello 19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Templates for non-DS/GS bans?
I've closed a couple ANI threads that led to community imposed bans and I can't find documentation anywhere about how to notify the editors. I know that for arbitration enforcement, we have {{AE sanction}} but I couldn't find anything similar for non-DS/GS (i.e., community-imposed) bans and sanctions. I've just been leaving hand-written messages on their talk pages (and may well continue to do so per WP:DTTR), but wondered if there are standardized templates in use that haven't made it into the documentation I've looked at. — Wug·a·po·des 01:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- There really should be more links from Admin pages to templates that we may need to use, they are not well-categorized at all. The closest I found was Category:Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates and Template:Community sanction. But I had to hunt for them. There should be links on Wikipedia:Administrators to commonly used templates. And there is no information about DS or GS on Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. I hope this helps, Wugapodes. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's been awhile since I closed a cban, but there is (IIRC) no specific template, it was always manually written. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
An anonymous user named "2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648" editing false informations on K/DA page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- K/DA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This anonymous user "2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648" has been reverting the edits in K/DA page, mostly on "Members" tab with false informations about which character is voiced by an artist. I tried to reach out to them to talk about the edits he/she made but I can't as this user is anonymous. And also, the edits they're making on K/DA page are false and it seems they don't have any proper explanation to support the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheLifeIChoose (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Account compromised: Posting for general awareness
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi , I ( Devopam ) received two emails today within a span of 15 minutes. The first one was alarming me regarding repeated login attempts and the next one came in that I have successfully changed my email to something else ( which I have no control of ). It advised me to connect with Administrators if I have not initiated the change. So, I went ahead and posted the issue here . Please understand that I am not deliberately tagging my user as alerts will go to the impersonator who has control of it. My Committed Identity ( long generated ) is posted here. I believe we need 2F authentication for controlling such instances but that is something for a larger discussion. Request you to please help in re-instating the account ( by simply reverting to the previous email id itself so that I can get the password reset link there ) or any other process that is relevant. Since I am not logged in , I will keep monitoring this page to see the responses. Thanks & regards. Devopam 136.185.169.146 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding 2FA, see Help:Two-factor authentication. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Devopam, I would actually recommend creating a spare account, while your IP address is static. Regarding regaining control. Us mere wiki-users cannot change your email address, you need someone with database access. I've never tried personally, but on occasions such as this people always point to the email address listed at the top of m:Help:Compromised accounts, and it seems be effective. We also have a local page at Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. Before anyone asks, several admins and established users were targeted today, within the past six hours. If that was you and your username does NOT begin with letters A through D, I'd like to hear from you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't compromised, but I would like to say I have receieved a lot of failed log in attempt notifications within the past month. There were around 60+ failed attempts in a period of 5 days at one point. I have requested 2FA. Hope this helps. Eyebeller 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that if you are able to prove using your CI or otherwise, the developers will be able to reinstate your account. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NSW Swifts/Sydney Swifts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned about the recent edits by @NettyHistory101: at New South Wales Swifts for several reasons which have outlined at Talk:New South Wales Swifts. In brief they are not up to Wikipedia standard and contain misleading and false claims. Djln Djln (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Djln, hm, it looks like what they were trying to add repeatedly was information directly copied from the team's website. I've p-blocked from the article to get them to start discussing. —valereee (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Valereee for your support. Unfortunately some "editors" confuse Wiki articles for fan forums. Djln Djln (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee Unfortunately NettyHistory101 has refused to enter in a proper discussion and is now editing article anonymously, continuing to post inaccurate information which as you pointed out is also in breech of copyright. Djln Djln (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- blocked the IP for a week for socking to evade the p-block. I've asked them on the IP's talk to please log back in, go to the article talk, and discuss. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee, thanks again for your support. Djln Djln (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- blocked the IP for a week for socking to evade the p-block. I've asked them on the IP's talk to please log back in, go to the article talk, and discuss. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator needed to close high-visibility, time-sensitive requested move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The requested move discussion at Talk:2021 United States Capitol protests#Requested_move_6_January_2021 needs administrative closure. Usually these run for seven days, and usually I would post at WP:RFCl, but (1) consensus seems quite clear to me WP:SNOW) and (2) this is an extremely high-visibility page for which (3) moving to the name chosen by consensus is time-sensitive (this is on the main page ITN section). Thanks, Neutralitytalk 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking with my page mover hat on, I think we should make a one-off decision to dispense with the seven day requirement because it's already one of the biggest page move discussions I've seen in a long time, and whether it's a "move" or "no consensus" won't change over the next six and a half days. We're allowed to close discussions early if the result is clear, just not normally this early. The only difficult decision is deciding which title it goes to (and I apologise for complicating it with my hat off). Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, that's the first time I learn news that big through an RfC! GPinkerton (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone willing to take this on? Neutralitytalk 01:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is always WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. I don't think the consensus is that clear for 'storming' atm anyway. There's a lot of "Support" but if you read the full comment it's for riots, or for some kind of move, not necessarily for storming. The only thing clear from that discussion imo is that there's consensus against protests. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Random observation: It is really weird to see stuff move this fast on Wikipedia. Is there any precedence for this?--WaltCip-(talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion is massive already, I think it would be good if an uninvolved admin closed it after 24 hours, or at least made an interim move and allowed for a more focused round of discussion on further changes. There are 3 main proposals with support (riot, storming, insurrection), and plenty of "support" and "oppose" votes that don't give clear opinions on all 3, so it will take some time to close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have looked at the discussion, and I do not think it is eligible for a SNOW close. I would wait for the whole week and, if it is still ongoing at that moment, also longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IndieGoGo
For some reason, adding links to indiegogo[dot]com is blocked even for extended confirmed users like me. I'm using this website as a reference for the funding total of CraftStudio but have had to break the URL to get past the filter. Can the ".com" be added to the page and maybe thie blocking of this link rethought? What's the problem with it? Nixinova T C 03:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's an obvious spam sink - that's why it's blacklisted. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Nixinova: - requests for individual pages to be allowed to be used can be made at WT:WHITELIST. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but for extended-confirmed users? Nixinova T C 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Usually the spam-filter blocks links for everyone, including administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's sadly not uncommon to see accounts that are obviously gaming EC status. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Nixinova, I'd rather see a better source that that anyway. Is there really nothing out there that mentions them reaching their funding goal in April? What's Ubuntu Vibes? —valereee (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, will replace it with that; for some reason google is terrible at giving me results for CraftStudio. Nixinova T C 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Should these US election articles be protected?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should some articles related to recent US elections be WP:ECP protected? The following were requested at WP:RFPP and declined by Fvasconcellos as insufficient recent activity and/or ECP would not stop some of the problematic edits: Mitch McConnell • John Thune • Dick Durbin • Chuck Schumer • Chuck Grassley • Patrick Leahy.
The problem, for example, is that enthusiastic but uninformed editors are doing things like changing Mitch McConnell from "Senate Majority Leader" to "Senate Minority Leader-designate". That change is factually incorrect, plus the designate term is made-up and has no standing. I'm posting here for opinions because abandoning the one or two editors trying to keep the articles factual seems unkind, yet the decline would be correct in normal times. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- (non-administrator comment) Wouldn't an editnotice pointing this out to editors also work without having to ECP protect a whole swathe of articles? Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Asartea, in this case, based on how I've seen editors ignore inline warnings recently, I don't think so. The Senate is changing hands, and I think some Democrats with new accounts may simply be too excited to restrain themselves from making these factually-incorrect edits. Given the multiple requests at Talk:Kelly Loeffler for similar incorrect changes, I'd say ECP is helping that page. Protecting the BLPs of the Senate leadership isn't a big leap from protecting Party leaders of the United States Senate for the same reason. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357, Thats a good point and after reading the talk pages for some of those pages I think ECP until January 20th when this matter should be settled no matter what might be a good idea. Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Asartea, in this case, based on how I've seen editors ignore inline warnings recently, I don't think so. The Senate is changing hands, and I think some Democrats with new accounts may simply be too excited to restrain themselves from making these factually-incorrect edits. Given the multiple requests at Talk:Kelly Loeffler for similar incorrect changes, I'd say ECP is helping that page. Protecting the BLPs of the Senate leadership isn't a big leap from protecting Party leaders of the United States Senate for the same reason. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- As the one who made the requests, I welcome this thread. I'd never gone straight to requesting ECP protection before requesting it for the relevant election yesterday. I agree that in normal times the individual level of disruptive behavior may not be enough to justify protection on some of these pages, but given the political upheaval we're seeing unfold in the US right now, I think it's critical we keep these pages factual. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- No objections to protection. Two weeks is a long time to fight off misinformed editors. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but these edits are minimally disruptive. Yes, users repeatedly adding "President pro tempore of the Senate-designate" is absurd, but does it warrant ECP/full protection? I really don't see how. This should be addressed with discussion. Perhaps another RfC, similar to the recent one at Jill Biden (later extended to Doug Emhoff), would be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Additionally, it's reasonable to expect that they'll die off within a day or so as it ceases to be breaking news. Editors rushing to put stuff about the results of an election in an article before the relevant office actually changes hands is normal and happens almost every time there's a high-profile contentious election; it rarely lasts for more than few days. --Aquillion (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but these edits are minimally disruptive. Yes, users repeatedly adding "President pro tempore of the Senate-designate" is absurd, but does it warrant ECP/full protection? I really don't see how. This should be addressed with discussion. Perhaps another RfC, similar to the recent one at Jill Biden (later extended to Doug Emhoff), would be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that temporary ECP protection would work if most editors are going to add the same thing. A previous discussion at Ymblanter's talk page in which football fans were adding transfer news to a footballer was met with protection instead of using editnotices. Given this situation, ECP should be deserved. Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 07:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It just happened again at Patrick Leahy. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- If there's a consensus to protect, then I am happy to protect them, although ECP does feel excessive to me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, ECP is probably a bit overkill but there are no intermediate levels of protection... Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 07:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fvasconcellos, looking at it even pages such as Mitch McConnell which are already semiprotected are still suffering from the same issues so I think ECP would be necessary if protection is used. Asartea Talk | Contribs 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The contested edits in Mitch McConnell were done by an extended-confirmed user, so ECP wouldn't help either in that specific case. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I semi-protected Patrick Leahy for a month as arbitration enforcement. We may not extended protect articles before they get semi-protected and protection turns out to be insufficient. This might likely happen in this case, and one may then upgrade protection to extended confirmed. My apologies, I do not have time now to look at other articles, I will do it later if the discussion has not been resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse Fvasconcellos' decline ECP wouldn't stop the disruption as Fvasconcellos points out, so imo that's just a non-starter. The only option would be full protection, but looking at the page histories there's absolutely no justification for full protection right now. Even if we had a sufficient protection level between ECP and full, this is still a bad candidate for protection and we should prefer blocks. The changes seem to be from one or two editors adding speculation about senate leadership--that's a situation to block not protect. Regardless, it seems to have stopped as Fvasconcellos points out the editor has agreed to abide by a recent RfC consensus. Most of these pages are semi-protected anyway, so the risk of disruption is already minimal; what we're talking about is whether to deny established editors the ability to edit high profile articles just because someone made a bold edit and then agreed to stop when challenged on it. That's not a recipe for page protection per WP:PREEMPT. — Wug·a·po·des 07:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse no ECP there's clearly an editing problem on some of these articles, but it doesn't seem too severe. As long as admins are watching the articles to discipline problematic editors (or even just regular editors to revert inappropriate edits) it seems fine for now. The volume to need ECP doesn't seem to be there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wuhan Institute of Virology could do with some eyes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We've had a few relative newcomers wanting to make contested changes at Wuhan Institute of Virology regarding the lab leak theory, and there are disputes about sources (scientific v news, popular etc) at the talk page. There don't seem to be many regular editors there at the moment, and I'm not able to do much myself (as, perhaps ironically, I'm quite ill with the relevant symptoms). So, experienced editors, admins, if you can spare the time to keep an eye on it, I think that would be helful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I'll look at it. Also hope you recover soon! Asartea Talk | Contribs 13:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Best wishes for a speedy recovery from me as well, Boing! said Zebedee! El_C 19:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes, hope you get better soon, Boing! said Zebedee!!! -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- JFC, this is still going on? I think getting a ANI thread to topic ban ScrupulousScribe, the main offender, is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- There seems to be some fighting breaking out at Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic too - I got a ping from there, but I'm not able to investigate right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokers Die Younger (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokers Die Younger (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was non-admin closed without any discussion. I have no views on the merits of the article, but it seems to me that it should be reopened and discussed properly, and I prefer to leave it to an admin to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like the nominator has withdrawn their nomination, but instead of calling it "withdrawn" called it "speedy keep".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've notified User:Opalzukor of this discussion. In cases like this, where it was withdrawn 2 minutes after creation, does it make more sense to just delete the AFD page and undo all the related edits? So that if anyone else creates an AFD, it would be the 2nd one? Or is it better to change close rationale to "withdrawn"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: Many apologies. I withdrew the nomination based on the rationale provided in the first nom and the article's talk page. I'm sorry for not tagging it as withdrawn. That being said, the article probably does need addressing. The sources provided on the talk page aren't in the article, and it seems like it was written from a fan's POV. Again, sorry for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, I (or someone more clueful about AFD) can do a little cleanup after someone tells me what we usually do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Since there were no other comments, I nuked it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, I (or someone more clueful about AFD) can do a little cleanup after someone tells me what we usually do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle For Dream Island
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to say that BFDI has caused a major industry online in YouTube per se, it has a big fan base, and probably should have a page. Although the page name has been blacklisted, could you please make it? It’s okay if you don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusherLeBFDIFan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- RusherLeBFDIFan, do you have any sources that an editor can make an article out of? This article guideline will help. Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Uhh... wikis? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- RusherLeBFDIFan, then, unfortunely, no, as those are not considered reliable. See WP:UGC. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, alright. RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- RusherLeBFDIFan, then, unfortunely, no, as those are not considered reliable. See WP:UGC. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Uhh... wikis? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suggesting page-banning user LambdofGod
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Since October, user LambdofGod has repeatedly edited the Roman people page, changing sourced content and in cases removing sources or editing content going against what is actually said in the sources used. It has forced me to add in an unnecessarily large amount of citations for certain statements in the article which are not actually controversial in academia. The main point of their edits appear to be to downplay Roman identity outside of Italy and push the idea that Italians are the foremost heirs of the Romans, a problematic viewpoint that goes against the consensus. At no point did they raise their grievances with the article on the talk page before editing. With this in mind, I suggest that LambdofGod be banned from editing the Roman people article, as I can see that banning a user from editing a specific page is possible (WP:PBAN). I can't speak of their edits elsewhere so I can't speak of anything beyond this specific article but I notice on their talk page that they have been challenged for adding their own personal interpretations to articles before. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ichthyovenator, I didn't think there was such an article; I looked for it once and found nothing. Now I see you have created it in the meantime. Well done! GPinkerton (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- GPinkerton Thank you! Making no claims that the article is complete as it stands but I think Roman identity and what happened to it is a fascinating subject and I hope some admin attention will resolve it being hijacked by people trying to emphasize ethnicity; you're welcome to take a look at the page and see if there is anything obvious you think is missing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
changes to functionary team
At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.
In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katietalk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:PERM is severely backlogged, with some unanswered requests dating back to almost a month ago. GMXping! 04:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) It could use some attention, but "severely backlogged" is an exaggeration; I see one (rollback) request >1 month old (with replies), and everything else in the last two weeks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) a backlog exists only at WP:PERM/MMS, WP:PERM/AWB and WP:PERM/FM. But none are "severe" in nature. — Amkgp 💬 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Buckle Up
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The DoD is referring to the storming of the US Capitol as the "2021 First Amendment Protests." It just hit twitter. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your point being? The term was immediately made a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. — Maile (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, my point being that it will likely bring in a new crop of POV-pushers to numerous articles, and that seemed worth notifying other admins about. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well, someone must have tried that , because there's an immediate media backlash saying the term does not apply. 1 — Maile (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I don't yet see anything online that says the Department of Defense has termed it that. Do you have a link other than twitter? Wouldn't the DofD have issued some official statement or something? Just because it's on Twitter does not mean it really happened. I have the feeling the recently Twitter-banned about-to-be-ex-prez has found a way to get his POV out on twitter anyway. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the press release from yesterday: [62] which links to the document: [63] and yes, I did check first. I just didn't realize I was going to need to prove it here at AN. —valereee (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- My concern was more that it didn't really matter if it was true or not as long as the Twitterverse believed it was true. —valereee (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Here's the press release from yesterday: [62] which links to the document: [63] and yes, I did check first. I just didn't realize I was going to need to prove it here at AN. —valereee (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- A quick search of the term reveals it's used in a few documents and websites, so I made it into a redirect as an alternative name. I don't think we can do much here except wait and see what happens. Pahunkat (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Demoratic Underground posted the copy of the memorandum from the office of the SecDef that uses that label.[64] Discussion of that memo probably found its way from there to twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Meh ... that was written on December 31, and the dept reports to the Twitter-banned current occupant of the Oval Office. Perhaps they were told to label it that, but we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- But the press release was from yesterday, and more importantly, it just now blew up on twitter. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- But the press release was from yesterday, and more importantly, it just now blew up on twitter. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Meh ... that was written on December 31, and the dept reports to the Twitter-banned current occupant of the Oval Office. Perhaps they were told to label it that, but we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Demoratic Underground posted the copy of the memorandum from the office of the SecDef that uses that label.[64] Discussion of that memo probably found its way from there to twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, my point being that it will likely bring in a new crop of POV-pushers to numerous articles, and that seemed worth notifying other admins about. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously this is not me being outraged, this is me trying to let other admins know that there is likely to be some outrage coming in to articles. Thought it was worth mentioning. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
100 000 edit award
- See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#100 000 edit award and time to close AFD :: User:Davidgoodheart asked me what special happens when a user reaches the 100 000 edit award. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- What happens is that you're allowed to make edit #100,001. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and your Wikipedia salary doubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I was told there'd be cake. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- There's always cake here. Paul August ☎ 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The cake is a lie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and your Wikipedia salary doubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: what happens is that they will receive an echo-notification (assuming that they didn't opt out of these) stating:
You just made your hundred thousandth edit; thank you for an amazing contribution!
. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- Really? I don't remember that. Maybe I've forgotten or I opted out - I'm not big on badges and other geegaws like that. (Although I certainly appreciate barnstars on those rare occasions when people are kind enough to award them to me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I'd like it if it notified me of the edit before a nice round number. That way I could do something particularly big and constructive,
like blocking JimboNosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- You can install the script which shows the number of edits got any user (including yourself).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I'd like it if it notified me of the edit before a nice round number. That way I could do something particularly big and constructive,
- I was notified for 10K edits (and I do get notified for 1, 10, and 100 edits made on other projects). I assume this is the default. The echo system was the only one who noticed I had 10K edits. --Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe you get a notification for every 10n edits Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Asartea: 10^n (n:0-7), your 100,000,000'th edit will sadly go unrecognized :D (see the text of these here) — xaosflux Talk 16:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, no one has made anywhere near 100 million edits, so this is moot. 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)
- I can not easily find the table, but I believe there are Wikidata bots with few million edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Xaosflux, seems to me like its bug report time Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bots don't really care about echo-thanks - but there are 2 approaching according to this query. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, no one has made anywhere near 100 million edits, so this is moot. 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)
- @Asartea: 10^n (n:0-7), your 100,000,000'th edit will sadly go unrecognized :D (see the text of these here) — xaosflux Talk 16:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe you get a notification for every 10n edits Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Really? I don't remember that. Maybe I've forgotten or I opted out - I'm not big on badges and other geegaws like that. (Although I certainly appreciate barnstars on those rare occasions when people are kind enough to award them to me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I got no cake, myself — didn't even know that it happened until the IP I was conversing with at the time was like: btw, congrats on reaching 100K edits. So, at least there was that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Great Western Main Line
I noticed from my watch list that someone has moved article Great Western Main Line and it's talk page from main space to Wikipedia project space. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post to get it resolved. Let me know if I should post elsewhere in future. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Review and Removal of RfC on Chad Wolf
I ask for review and removal of the RfC on Chad Wolfs page.
It is currently being used to display information in a misleading, out of order, manner. I provided opinion and suggestion in a new talk about how to change Chad Wolf's heading to read without confusing or burying of the lede.
The current RfC is being used as a shield against changes. Changes that are needed as Chad Wolf resigned his position and the current RfC heading confuses that.