Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	8	27
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	17	41	58
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 146 sockpuppet investigations
• 29 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 62 requests for RD1 redaction
• 52 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 130 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 17 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7756 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s 2024-05-17 16:17 2024-05-24 16:17 move Don't move your User talk page except by a Renamer Liz User:MayNard Keith Batiste, Jr 2024-05-17 15:29 2024-05-31 15:29 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Komail Anam 2024-05-17 13:36 2024-11-17 13:36 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute, per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Komail_Anam OwenX 2024 Radboud University Nijmegen pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-17 02:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Speedcore (Punk) 2024-05-16 23:02 2024-05-23 23:02 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

---

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.

  I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):

  They’re not really a few dime a dozens,

  per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”

  i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:

  You were accused of pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this?

  You also also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. in this edit. What is your response to this?

  You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?

  Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO

1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.

“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”

2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR

3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,

for example:

When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330

If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.

Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism against me

A user has accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, and will neither provide any evidence nor retract the allegation despite being invited several times to do either. How should I proceed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This thing was already explained in the edit summary [1], all I said is to paraphrase things rather than add what exactly the source says. Also the lead section source of Top 10 best John Cena's matches says how significant and historic it was but ItsKesha keeps removing that their 2014 match was the end of their historic rivalry even tho source 1 and 22 implies that and I just paraphrased it. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I already proved it on the edit summary saying the need to paraphrase and both source 1 and source 22, wwe and comicbook.com implied it was historic so I just paraphrased it but you won't accept because its not copy pasting, which is what you do, let admins review the page and find out then. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• To both, please read tedentious editing and WP:Bludgeoning, fight about content across three pages is pretty disruptive especially when you are both repeating yourselves over.

Now to the actual issues, Dilbaggg, wrestling is fake and should not be presented as reality. Wikipedia likes boring writing, no need to add emotions or qualify people as prominent writers. Also, there is zero reason ever to include a source twice simultaneously, once with a proper cite template and once with the raw link. The raw link serves no purpose there. Finally, stop using words like vandal, plagerism, and BLP because you clearly do not know their meaning on Wikipedia. Wrestling is fake, writing about fictional characters is not a BLP violation, content disputes are not vandalism and unless you have better diffs there is zero evidence that copyright or plagiarism plays a part in the dispute.

ItsKesha, just stop posting the same thing over and over again. Its not helpful here or on any other page where you repeat yourself and continuing a content dispute across three pages without waiting for any other editors to comment is just silly. Brevity is your friend. Slywriter (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Thank you for ypur comment, I will just point out taht I am not the only user who had issue with ItsKesha, he removes warnings from other users and even admins, all can be viewed on talk page, but yes I agree with you i should not use thsoe terms like that either and am genuinly sorry, and ok I won't accuse ItsKesha anything, this is mainly sorrounding content dispute and yes I guess we wrestling fans do get carried away, but I promise I won't accuse editors including ItsKesha for that unless its proper reasoning. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

But you still haven't removed any of the accusations? Whether I remove comments from my talk page is absolutely irrelevant and none of your business whatsoever, and has no place in discussions here. Your apology, which I don't accept as being genuine, doesn't excuse your accusations, which still haven't been retracted. It's not a "content dispute" to make such accusations which are still scattered all over the place. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, with only a few exceptions, an editors is allowed to remove sections from their talk page, and doing so indicates that the editor has read the message. The removed posts stay in the edit history. Will you please withdraw the incorrect accusations that you have made against ItsKesha? Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok he may not have violated copyrights and will remove that, but my accussation below is legit @Cullen328, also he removed my comment here, thats what is aid, i never said he can't remove talk page warns, but I just brought that up because he does it as a tactic to hide his persistant behavior, but he can not remove my comment here which he had done if you check the history as this is not his talk page. Anyway ok I egt itsKesha gets lot of smpathy for kesha's picture and all, and I never said he can't remove talk page warns but just brought up the fact that he gets away with his undeniable abuses (if you check his edit hostory and all the similar warns he reciieved) by doing that. Guess the cute Kesha pic has a soft effect for him tho. Either ways to me he did plagarise, but I respect admin decision so will erase that part. But I request taht eh does not contiue t WP:EW and remove the PWTorch WP:PW/RS which i talked about in the section below. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, you've just accused me again of plagiarism? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, are you actually accusing editors and administrators of bias towards me because I jokingly have a picture of Kesha on my userpage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not flater yourself ItsKesha, I never said Admins are biased to you, I pointed out taht you do not take admins seriously and hide their warnings from your talk page, which would ahve been fine but you still violate the things they waarned you for. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you never said admins are biased, why have you apologised below? And why have you, again, accused me of plagiarism? This is absolutely pathetic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, your assertion that I am somehow influenced by a picture on ItsKesha's userpage is ludicrous and spurious. You are digging a hole for yourself. It would be wise to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I apologise deeply, i was frustrated that itsKesha always get away even with admin warnings just by erasing talk page wars and erasing talk page waarns is nothing wrong but he continues to do the things people, including Admins warned him not to do, and saadly Admins are too busy to review over 500 edits in his talk page history. They have a busy life and simply don't have sufficient time to review his case, and I can't take things to ANI as PW is in GS Anyway my commet was sort of uncivil, if youw ant you can punish me, unlike ItsKesha I take responsibilities for my mistakes, so please forgive me and if you want you can punish me but I request you to stop ItsKesha's aggressive EW behavior. I myself am guilty of content dispute with him but I am a human, I have feelings and I am just frustrated with how he turns things and its been that way with him for 2 years, anyway please accept my apology, I am sorry about that. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, thank you for your apology which I accept. In return, I want to give you some advice which I hope that you will find useful. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are angry. Go smell some roses instead. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are frustrated. Watch some kittens frolicking instead. When you edit Wikipedia, edit with a level head, and strive to write logical persuasive sentences, and do your best to use proper grammar and to spell correctly. Never criticize another editor without providing persuasive evidence, and do not expect someone else to go searching for the evidence. That is your job. These are the skills of productive encyclopedia editors, and will also make your opinions on article content more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS

I asked Its Kesha to request consensus for majotr changes in [2] and [3] but he refuses to do that and keeps erasing 7 years accepted WP:PW/RS based on personal views. He has a history of warning for aggressive editing but he always erases them on his talk page but they can all be viewed on his talk page history. Anyway i am done here, if I am the one at fault am sorry, but i didn't want to tell about ItsKesha's persistant agressive editing behavor, but I did, and if I am the one out, its fine, I just said fact, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've asked several times for you to prove these allegations or to retract them altogether. You can't accuse somebody of this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha removed my latest message, he has no right to remove other people's comments, even if they are offtopic (which this is not as they are on similar topic) only admins can do that, if they do I will accept whatever decision they take. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing nonsense that has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

its your history of disruptive and uncivil behavior, just FIVE of MANY recent examples by multiple editors on your talk page and yes since the matter is here all can be included, including the time you falsely accused me of adding bad citations when you are the one keeping one and removing my WP:RS contents: [4], [5], [6], [7] [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbaggg (talk • contribs)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a place all issues can be brought up and looked into, anyway one alst thing, you have no right to remove other people's emssages, this is not your personal talk page where you have removed so many warnings (including from admins), just similar to what it was here, nothing else left to say to you: [9] Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did in edit summary I already said that you should paraphrase, and both source 1 and 22 implied its a historic match but you just copy paste. Anyway let admins decide, if its against me I will respect their decision, but I have the right to warn you to not delete other peole's messge regardless and all issues can be brought up here. No I will stop talking because I already explained but you keep saying I didn't, you are just trying ti bury my allegation under your texts, keep it up, I willrespect whatever admins decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I seperated the topics, happy now, also here is a false tag of article having unreliable source when all the sources were WP:PW/RS and ItsKesha insistes on removing wwe.com and wrestleview despite both of them being accepted sources and there being other sources like pwtorch, 411mania aned bleacher report. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Let me also say that pro wrestling articles fall under santions for editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly why i didn't want to bring these issues up, but ItsKesha always gets a free pass just by erasing all editors and even admin warnings from his talk page, his talk page history shows that, anyway you are right WP:PW is in GS, and I should be careful and won't ring up content disputtes here again. I am sorry for the trouble we caused, and I hope ItsKesha and me can work together in peace with cooperation. Bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and let go, but User:ItsKesha continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source:[10] and adds sources like TMZ whih don't fall into Wp:PW/RS [11], and this has already broken WP:EW limit, yes he removed a little duplicate info, but he also intentionally removed WP:PW/RS PWtorch and the crucial info, and he says the quality is not good enough to im, who is he alone to determine that [12], I requested him to seek Wp:RfC many times he doesn't. I am a human, I have patient limits, I respect Wikipedia rules but this is a user who always gets away with WP:EW and stuff by always removing talk page warns, yes I am guilty of being dragged to content dispute too, I am sorry, but why shold ItsKesha always get away for his behavior just because he hides all his past warns. Does erasing talk page warns including from admins lets you get a free pass? Don't talk page histories gets checked. If he stopped the behavior after warning, its not an issue to remove them, but he doesn't. I restored the PWTorch info one last time and hope @User:ItsKesha doesn't shamelessly WP:EW after this and I am sorry to be dragged to this WP:PW debate under GS, we wrestling fans tend to be passionate but I request that Itskesha stops removing WP:pW/RS and claims he alone gets to judge an articles quality. Have a busy day ahead, so my last words, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

One last thing regarding the Randy orton article, it does feel like WP:BLP violation, pro wrestling is scripted yes, but so are movies, if people remove large amount of contents from actors rticles such as Johnny Depp for eg, it will count BLP violation, I repeatedly requested Itsesha to seek WP:RfC but he will not do that because votes will not go in favor, [13], what is his problem in seeking RfC, and he had similar issues in the past in 2020 but that time project ws more active and they got to him and forced him to ask a consensus, sadly a lot of editors are inactive now : [14], anyway I know there is nothing wrong with removing takl page warns but Kesha has used it as a tool to evade any action and has even removed admin warnings and continued to do things he was warned for likeremoving WP:RS, doing WP:EW and stuff, sad thing is admins are too busy and do not have the ti e to review 500+ edits on his talk page history. Anyway this is the last thing i will say here, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

(Multiple EC as I started replying hours ago then got busy with other stuff) First this edit [15] by ItsKesha, was not right. I initially thought it was a hidden edit conflict or accident, but the above discussion seems to suggest it was intentional. Other than when removing outing or where the editor making the comment is a sock or troll, or maybe a very serious personal attack, no editor should remove a complaint against them at AN. It doesn't matter if the editor making the complaint has an existing complaint which you feel they have not provided sufficient evidence for, let the community deal with it if a WP:BOOMERANG is needed. Likewise if you feel it would be better to segment the threads, then it might be okay to do so, but don't remove the complaint.

As for the other stuff. Well an editor doesn't get away with edit warring because they remove warnings. You're supposed to show diffs at ANEW anyway and so the removal of warnings doesn't affect the ability to report edit warring to ANEW. Frankly ItsKesha has been around long enough it's questionable if warnings are needed.

Also "we wrestling fans tend to be passionate" is a well known problem and any wrestling fan should be ensuring their passion isn't causing problems. Notably I'd point out that wikiproject reliable source guidelines are effectively WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. They are hopefully useful in excluding those unreliable specialised sources for the area, as well as in finding specialised sources which can be used. But they should never be taken as some sort of bible of what sources to use.

In particular, reliable sources should not be excluded just because they don't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. This doesn't mean it's a good idea for an editor to go around replacing one reliable source with another, generally speaking there should be sufficient reason to do this, but this applies in both directions. And a source appearing in a wikiproject guideline is not by itself sufficient reason.

I would note WP:TMZ is not a good source so I can't imagine any reason why an editor would be replacing other sources with it. If the existing source is no good, then find another source. However the general point remains and no editor should be saying the BBC (to give a random example) is not a good source just because it doesn't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. In fact, if it supports the information, replacing pwtorch or 411mania with the BBC is likely to be a good thing since there's generally far less question over the reliability of the BBC so that's probably sufficient reason to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, it seems the TMZ was used as this was a statement made to TMZ. That's one of the few cases when using TMZ in BLP is probably okay although due weight considerations still apply if TMZ is the only source. (If no one else cares that this person said whatever to TMZ then probably it isn't very important.) Also I may have misunderstood the above statement I assumed "continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source:<diff removed> and adds sources like TMZ" meant one source was being replaced with the other. But it seems these were separate events supporting different info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne User:ItsKesha recently broke his topic professional wrestling ban sanction on pro wrestling article by doing this edit[16] and once again removed large amount of contents without seeking any consensus. Not sure this is allowed or not, but just letting you know about the topic ban evasion. Heres the topic ban log of his talk page which he might erase like he does with most warns: [17] Dilbaggg (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: I suggest you either ping the editor who imposed the topic ban User:NinjaRobotPilot or open a new thread as it's likely your comment here will just be missed, and there's nothing I can do about any possible violation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I mean User:NinjaRobotPirate Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if practical, I'd prefer someone else decide that. If I repeatedly sanction ItsKesha, it's likely to convince this editor that I have some kind of grudge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:NinjaRobotPirate You are not the only admin to warn him, he has a history of disrespectfully removing admin warns from his talk page, you can review those all, but its fine to remove admin warns but not to repeat the behavior he was warned for. If he can get away with breaching topic bans, that would encourage others and also be injustice to those who did not get away by breaching topic ban. Either ways you are a very senior admin, I just wanted to let this behavior known, this is possibly my last message here and I respect whatever decision you take. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something or do I not see a topic ban being imposed there? Can you link where a topic ban from pro wrestling was decided? — Czello 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Did you impose a topic ban from pro wrestling on ItsKesha? — Czello 22:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The topic is under general sanctions. There was no discussion. Go to User talk:ItsKesha, press control-f, and type in banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I see it, thanks. Somehow missed that earlier. — Czello 05:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE

Getting a bit backed up and stale, if any admin has the time to help out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support this request. Huldra (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123

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

---

I have blocked longtime user User:Martinevans123 and removed his Autopatrolled right due to persistent copyright problems. I see on his talk page three postings regarding violations of the copyright policy this year alone (March, June, today), and he has received numerous additional warnings (I see six warnings from myself alone in his archives; there are likely others). He has twice been blocked for copyvio (two short blocks: 2018, 2019). I am noting my actions on this board given the extent of the problem, as he has ~200,000 edits. A CCI will likely have to be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Disappointing. I thought better of them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If the community thinks it would be constructive, and if Martin is agreeable, I offer to provide supervision/mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're the right person to act as a mentor, since you did not seem to see what the problem was with the edit I posted about on his talk page back in March. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If people don't want me to, I won't. But I want to correct what you said about me, because I feel like it's a bit condescending. You linked to a version of his talk page, as of that comment that I made (a somewhat facetious comment, starting with an offer to spank him). But there was further discussion after that. Here is a link to the full discussion: [18]. I actually did take it seriously, offered to help with a serious rewrite, and did a genuine rewrite myself, including the source material that Martin wanted to include, but rewriting it in a copyright-compliant manner. Here is the combined diff of my edits: [19]. And here is a link to the source: [20]; anyone please feel free to check/compare. And Martin was cooperative with me. I'm a retired tenured university professor, and I find the opinion that I am poorly equipped to recognize plagiarism, well, troubling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also been editing here since 2007, including FA work, and have never had issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing in my own editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In spite of your initial flip remarks to which I linked, your proposed rewrite does look okay according to Earwig's tool. I want to say though, that your jocularity about the problem impeded my efforts to get him to take the copyright matter seriously. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are times when editors, and particularly administrators, take themselves too seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My experience with Martinevans is that I have not seen him take any criticism seriously. In my opinion, he seems to have lots of banterbuddies on this site, and seems he to navigate articles and issues with an unwarranted degree of entitlement. The cited thread regarding the copyvio seems typical. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, I'm not one of his "banterbuddies", but having seen/interacted Martin over the years I think that's overly harsh. Sure, he does default to flippancy generally (not just specifically in relation to criticism) which is not necessarily everyone'e cup of tea. But I don't recognise "unwarranted degree of entitlement". I have to say that Martin's flippant responses are often in contexts when other editors might well have got aggressive, genuinely uncivil, downright PA etc or is in the face of other editors' aggression, incivility, PAs etc. A little facetiousness is a small price to pay when it defuses/avoids what so often otherwise happens on WP. As far as the Copyvio is concerned, I have no comment other than if Tryptofish is willing to mentor and Martin is willing to go down that route then after his 200k+ edits, 100+ articles created and 15 years I would hope and expect that to be solution. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the way Martinevans123 responds to stuff but that's neither here nor there. But I feel I should repeat something I've said before thought. While Martinevans123 is ultimately responsible for their actions, editors should consider whether the way they've responded in trying to support a friend who may be unhappy with a situation, have unfortunately contributed to this editor not understanding the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for reform. This doesn't mean editors cannot offer words of support for their friend, simply that it should not come the the expense communicating the gravity of the situation. If not in the initial support, then later when their friend has had a chance to calm down. Since ultimately their friend changing their behaviour is not only for the benefit of the project, but likely the friend themselves. (As a lot of the time, we end up with this result where whatever problems their friend is causing can no longer be ignored so a long term block results.) To be clear, this is a comment on how we ended up here, I have no problem with the mentorship. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Tryptofish mentoring. None of us are perfect, but Trypofish has the skills, and Martin will listen to him, which is just as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with mentorship as a last chance, but I am not optimistic that he will change his ways. People who get warned repeatedly for copyright infringement usually don't come back. SPECIFICO's comments make me even less optimistic. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this probably needs a CCI. Harry van der Weyden is also copyvio from [21] (tagged instead of deleting to let others double check). There's also at least a sentence of straight copypaste at Lawrence Mynott. I'm sure there is more than what I can find in 5 minutes. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have been writing a guide to copyright blocks at User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks, which contains advice on when to block and how to appeal. I doubt it will be completely useful in this situation, but who knows. I do want to say though, I do not want to see conflict between people I care about here. I really hope that doesn't happen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've enjoyed the odd bit of banter in the past with Martinevans123, and I think that SPECIFICO's comments above are unnecessary, and rather unkind in the circumstances. I cannot find fault with this block however - that latest Sam Smith article was indeed a direct cooy/paste job of an entire article - no one should be doing stuff like that, far less an experienced user whose Autopatrolled flag means that issues are less likely to be detected by others. Tryptofish's offer is generous, I hope that will offer a route out of this situation that gives us confidence that there will be no more similar occurrences. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I've taken a look at that Sam Smith issue, too, and it's a clear copy-paste-edit-save. valereee (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's very disappointing and concerning considering the number of warnings he has been given. I like Martin a lot but he does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this sort of thing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am very reticent to support any mentoring because this isn't something that should require mentoring. These are the most basic copyright violations you can make. Someone with 200,000 edits should not be making them. This is a basic question of competence, and Martinevans spent all the time he was being given warnings continuing to use his talk page as water cool and soapbox, rather than changing his behavior. He can't even say anything close to a "my bad" or "I understand" the issue on his talk page—and has met previous warnings with hostility or contempt. What indication has been made that anything will be different after all these blocks and warnings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, I'm sorry to say this about a longtime and valued contributor. But copyvios are serious as it runs afoul our licensing, as noted at WP:Copyright violations; and may cause legal problems. RD1 is specifically for this purpose. Indeed, the editing window has the disclaimer on it. If it's a copyvio: We. Can't. Keep. It. I am ambivalent on Trypto's offer, which is kind. It may help but these are persistent problems and unblocking should not occur without a very strong understanding about what is acceptable and not. Maybe wait 6 months and apply for the standard offer with a detailed appeal that describes what went wrong? Again, I'm sorry to say this because I believe Martin is here in good faith, but these are serious issues. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I appreciate the kind comments about my offer from some of the editors here. And I recognize that there may not be consensus for mentoring. Perhaps I did myself no favor by offering; Wikipedia can be a very insensitive place. But Martin has been a long-time editor and a net positive, and there is a difference between pride, and bad faith or incompetence. I am well aware of the fact that he has already had multiple previous warnings, and has a concerning history of recidivism. Despite my wiki-friendship, it has bothered me, too. In my professional life, I have been a hard-ass about not tolerating plagiarism – just ask the students that I flunked. I'm not naive about it. And I want to make it clear that my offer is not intended as a get out of jail free card. I would see it as something with:
  • a 6-month community editing restriction where he could not start new pages or make additions to content without my prior approval.

  And I would treat it as:

  • making him learn, not as me rewriting it for him.

  And finally,

  • a failure on his part to reform would lead to a reinstatement of the indef block.

  I don't see that as a risk to the project. I wouldn't offer this if I didn't believe in doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: he could not ... make additions to content without my prior approval. Is that practicable? That seems like potentially a lot of oversight. I don't know enough about how he works and how much content addition is what he does though. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. I would likely slow him down, and that would be part of the price he would pay. I would assume that a failure to wait for me would result in a block. The way I see it, he would have to make a draft version in draft space or user space, and I would have to review it before it could go into main space. And any version that fails the test would be subject to revision deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I can't fault the block - the article in question was a clear copyvio and had obviously been written by taking the biography on the subject's website and changing the odd word. It comes off the back of two prior blocks and two warnings from this year alone. The responses to the prior warnings were very flippant and to one of the very few people here who does much text copyright work. I'm also very dubious about mentorship for similar reasons to David Fuchs above. Hut 8.5 16:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that I should say that I don't fault the block either. I really don't. I'm just trying to offer a solution. (And although it's true that some people simply cannot learn, that's not something that's true of everybody.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• At his talk page, Martin has agreed to a variation on this, with the block still in place (but with continuing talkpage access): [22]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Possibly a daft question, but where is the (C) copyright text at http://sam-smith.org/ ? Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Copyright is automatic, it doesn't have specific copyright text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I love that question, and if I can stop laughing long enough to show off my knowledge of the copyright policy, I'll try to answer it. There does not have to be an assertion of copyright for Wikipedia to recognize copyright. Absent an explicit licensing to the contrary, it is always taken as a given that the author of a work owns the copyright. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There's no need to be patronising - I understand that copyright is fixed as soon as the material is, but I was just wondering if that might have been the issue here? Only Martin can answer that, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Oh, Black Kite, I'm so sorry, I truly did not intend that to be patronizing. Sorry it came off that way. I was genuinely trying to explain how this works, and I genuinely was amused by the thought that the block might have had an incorrect rationale if there were no copyright violation – just think how pointless this whole discussion would have been if it were. Martin should have known that copyright applied, even without a notice about it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My fault, I should have been clearer the first time. This is what happens when you edit in record temperatures (39C here when I typed that!) Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Berne Convention is relevant here. Basically tl;dr in the absence of a disclaimer otherwise, it's subject to copyright. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is an example of why it'd be better if we all stopped talking about "copyvio" and "copyright violation", because those are complicated legal terms that none of us really understand, and instead talked about "license violation", because that's really the problem, which is that the text we're purporting to license CC-BY-SA is not actually properly attributed to the actual author. Forget about how close is too close paraphrasing and whether something is covered by copyright law in what jurisdiction or what notices or disclaimers it has... if the text we publish is not actually written by us, we are violating our own license. Every time we publish in mainspace, we're purporting to license the prose we publish CC-BY-SA, and we cannot re-license prose that was written by someone else. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (Forewarning: all of the following is a side note from the original issue.) The license that has to be considered is the one for the original text, and whether or not it is compatible with being relicensed as CC-BY-SA. If the text was released in the public domain, for example, and so all reuses are freely allowed, then it can be licensed as CC-BY-SA without attribution. If the text has a CC-BY-SA license, it too can be reused, though it has to be attributed (see the bottom of Length measurement for an example). Close paraphrasing often does have to get discussed, for better or worse, since many instances of copied text are done with some modifications. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Case requested. This will take years to clean up with how little people actually care to clean up copyright issues. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for getting that going, and for tracking it down. About the time and effort needed for cleanup, that is indeed a significant problem across the copyvio area. Martin has indicated on his talk page that he is going to pitch in and clean up after himself (in userspace). I would hope that he will save other editors a lot of work, as well as demonstrate his willingness and competence to reform. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given how things are developing, I think we can save editors some time and energy by no longer discussing the block here. Martin is accepting it and not going to contest it, and instead pursue an effort in user space to demonstrate his good will. There's no need to close the discussion, just that it seems settled that there will be no unblock for now. And editors can wait and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given the timing of the first edit made on Wikipedia, I would have thought the experience would be enough for Martin not to add copyrighted material in addition to numerous warnings. One bit of assistance between Martin and I recently was to try and stop content dispute on Will Young which has stopped thanks to a partial block. Hopefully the user will come back with a clearer mind on copyrighted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Given how much time and effort it takes other people to clean up copyvio issues, I've never understood why there isn't a sanction that goes like this "Until your CCI is complete, you can choose to be blocked or help clean up. If the latter, you may not add anything to any article except in the course of cleaning up past articles under the guidance of volunteers at CCI." I don't understand how we have (a) several CCIs open while the editors people are cleaning up after continue to edit other articles without pitching in; (b) people blocked who are willing to help with their own CCI, unless they're somehow totally helpless in understanding copy/pasting and close paraphrasing. In the immediate, this means: if Martin is down to help clean up, let him try before indeffing, and indef if there are any edits outside of the scope of the CCI. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a good point. I guess that when it comes to laying down the law, Wikipedia would rather cut off our nose to spite our face. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  From what I have seen and heard from others, these efforts generally simmer out after a few months. On a MUCH more positive note, people helping out with cleaning up their own messes makes it easier on us, especially if they're not WMF, Community, or 3X banned on other merits. As for why blocks first; people don't just stop when we request them to. We don't know if they're going to really go and help out at their CCI or are going to make more work for us, and we don't know if they even understand copyright. If they continue to edit as we open a CCI, we have to expand the list with even more edits. And especially to our copyright admins, they do not have the time to babysit an editor that they unblocked looking for edits that aren't in the vein of cleanup. I can see Martin getting an unblock, or at least a downgrade to a p-block from mainspace, if mentoring goes well, if he demonstrates understanding of copyright, and especially if he helps clean it up. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why not just downgrade to p-block from mainspace now? Levivich (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's actually a very good point. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that part of the mentoring should ideally be helping to clean up the mess that a CCI would likely be. In terms of the more general point though I don't see how allowing someone to continue to edit but demanding they participate in a CCI is helpful by itself. The whole point is that by the time we're blocking someone, they've been warned repeatedly but have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to avoid creating copyright problems, we can assume because they don't understand the problem. They have to demonstrate an understanding before their efforts to help out at CCI are going to be useful. This isn't like someone vandalising Wikipedia where we can assume they know. The alternative is they do know but don't care which is far more serious and I think many will be reluctant to trust them ever again even if they seem to be make a genuine effort at their CCI. Of course partial blocks are also still newish but still I'm not sure a change to practice is called for. Remember such blocks are one of several examples where indefinite does not have to mean infinite or even very long but the editor needs to convince an admin before we can allow them to return. And an editor can still use CCI to help demonstrate their understanding, just that they need should use their talk page since we can't trust their efforts as being useful. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Though I agree in theory with having editors clean up after themselves before doing anything else, I appreciate in practice, letting editors continue with other activities is the carrot to get them to help, rather than just leaving. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: The majority of those who get blocked for copyright violations don't offer to help out at the subsequent CCI. If they do offer to help out and are subsequently unblocked, few actually help out at the CCI. Forcing them to help as an unblock condition has provided mixed results when I've done it. For the "try before indeffing" comment; if I understand what you are saying correctly, something similar used to be tried in the early days of CCI; a 48 hour block or so would be applied or the contributor would be warned after the CCI was opened instead of a block. This almost always lead to further violations, leading to that practice being discontinued. Just in the last year, I've had to block two users for copyright violations that occurred after their CCI was opened, when they should've been just blocked at the time (both cases were opened in 2014). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Moneytrees: Hope you don't mind that I moved your response down for chronology reasons. But yeah, I was actually thinking of something I've seen you say in the past about a giant pile of work created by people who don't lift a finger to help clean it up yet somehow continue to work on other content (paraphrasing). It was frustrating to hear. I thought then -- and still do -- that in the cases where the workload is large, where people have been given lots of warnings and guidance, etc., that they should be required to help clean it up if they want to stick around. I get that many people would just head for the hills, but if they want to stick around, then great -- here's how to fix the mess. My suggestion wasn't quite what Trypto proposed, but pretty close: choose between being blocked and helping clean up, and if the latter and edits to articles unrelated to the cleanup will get you reblocked. What he proposed was close enough, and simpler, though I don't know how much an articlespace tban inhibits helping out with the cleanup. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• The CCI has been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 (numbered names are used for real names/privacy related reasons.) It won't be filled out for a few days or so due to the large number of edits. For those wanting to help out, I have written a guide to CCI at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  MER-C has filled out and culled the CCI at this point. I recommend collaboration to clean everything up. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll try and set up a cleanup page soon. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• The mentorship idea, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: change to a mainspace p-block

Per the last couple of comments above, I propose that the community endorse the idea that the indef block will be changed to a p-block from mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • To expand on why I support this, there would be zero risk of anything becoming a problem in article space, and it would create a situation in which Martin could actually help clean up the CCI, as I believe he will, reducing the workload on other editors. He can demonstrate whether he can remain a net positive, and editors will be able to evaluate that. Should things turn out wrong, the block can always be changed back to an indef. What matters most is improving articles, not making an example of an otherwise good member of the community, and this is a risk-free way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per, well, my support above. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support There are issues that need to be resolved for sure, and there are people willing to work toward that end. For all that's gone wrong in the past, let's try and get this long-term contributor back on track rather than show them the door. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose I would not advise extending trust to someone who has repeatedly been warned and blocked about this single issue and yet is too lazy to obey a very clear rule. Anyone so foolish is not a value-add to this endeavor, even if other Wikipedians find them to be pleasant to get along with. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It works in reverse, too; trust me. Also, "lazy" is too harsh; go with something more sympathetic, like "stupid". Levivich (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator spewing of bile) To be blunt, that's childish. At his talk page, you can see me explaining this "very clear rule" (which, somehow, an awful lot of people find sufficiently unclear in real life, that it has to be taught to them), and him acknowledging that he feels badly that he previously misunderstood some of the distinctions between attribution and original writing. The rule that violations are bad is a very clear rule, but the line between what is and what is not a violation is something that needs to be learned. I spent considerable amounts of time explaining it to university students, including graduate students. And only on Wikipedia would it be considered a virtue not to be appreciated by one's colleagues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, and he wouldn't be getting away with anything, unless the goal is for other editors to do more work just to make a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, he can help with the CCI (and elsewhere) and there'd be no risk of making the CCI worse by adding more mainspace edits. No evidence of disruption outside mainspace. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a final chance to change his editing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a first step, hopefully some mentoring and discussion and soul searching will lead to a full lift of the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose what exactly are we gaining by an editor who cannot be trusted to edit all of articlespace? I don't think stuff like keeping his political enemies list up to date is dearly needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this being changed to an indef P-block from (Article) and/or Draft: space, since that's how I typically make my copyright blocks. The change is mostly semantic, and it can make appealing easier. I'm not sure this whole proposal is needed though, you could just ask Diannaa if she'd consider changing it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per what I said just above this section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Don't know (non admin comment) I've only just arrived here, and don't know the backstory, but as Tryptofish asks for community input here's mine.... as a "virgin" editor unfamiliar with this behavior and this user, I'd like to hear something - anything - from Martinevans123 that seems convincing of their grasp of the problem and feedback without straying into WP:GASLIGHT territory, or other form of WP:GAMING. If they can do that, then sure, do a temporary p-block from main space. But if they can not or do not provide such a statement, why are we talking about anything short of a global indef? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @NewsAndEventsGuy: Just noting that the only thing close to a "global indef" would be a global lock or global ban and would have to be proposed on Meta. These only occur where there has been abuse on multiple projects or they are a spambot, which doesn't appear to be the case here given their history. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll plead lowly regular editor (not admin) naivete. When I said "global" I just meant indef from the english wikipedia. Of course, a preferable result would be a demonstration from this editor that they can modify their contribs in response to abundant feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry for doing this as an IP - I don't edit much anymore - but Martinevans123 is a significant net positive to the project. The issue here, for those who know him, is that he is a very relaxed and casual funny person. I think he felt that copying text off low-grade sites with no obvious copyright and with some paraphrasing was okay (what BlackKite was referring to earlier). From this process, he now clearly realizes that this is not the case (i.e. copyright is automatic and a serious issue regardless of origin), and will try and fix his problems. Experienced editors helping to fix their own CCI in a good faith manner, is a far better solution all round. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose if someone can't be trusted to edit mainspace then they shouldn't be editing here. Mainspace is, after all, the main point of the encyclopedia. This strikes me as very generous treatment for someone who hasn't shown any particular interest in the idea. Hut 8.5 11:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It will not be doing Martinevans any favors, trying to sugarcoat this. He and his friends still appear to be somewhat in denial about the crux of the issue. It's not that he misunderstood something or other about our core writing and sourcing practices. The block is because he did not respond to feedback from others. That's not something that can be wiki-tweaked away. A hiatus and time for off-wiki reflection is the most likely to lead to a change of approach, and it would be doing him a disservice to keep him here, on-wiki but in a cage -- surrounded by well-intentioned friends who will only distract him from confronting the fundamental problem. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Martinevans123 has now put up a Wikibreak template, so a partial unblock seems unneccessary at this time. Perhaps if/when he returns, a partial unblock might be useful. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, someone else put the template there, and it's now been removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, he did add the template to his talk page, and it is still there. He mentioned he was unable to add it also to his user page, so I did it trying to help out, but was reverted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see - thanks for the explanation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Given that Martin has made it very clear on his user page that he wants to take some quiet time away from here, I guess I agree that the immediate issue in this discussion has become moot. But I think that a basic human decency requires considering what he has actually said on his talk page, rather than just making shit up about what he supposedly thinks, which is what multiple editors, including some who should know better, have been doing here. He appears to intend to come back, but he wants to take his time and think seriously about the issues raised, noting that he wants to remove a lot of pages from his current watchlist so that he can focus on the content that will need to be fixed. He has been engaging with other editors there, who have been offering advice about the correct way to write content, and he is showing every sign of taking that input seriously. No flippant dismissal of any of it. He clearly wishes to get his act together, and eventually return to being an editor in good standing. As for such comments here as he cannot be trusted, that he keeps an enemies list (Are you kidding me? It's about Putin and Ukraine, not other editors!), that he is showing no interest in improving, and that he and his wiki-friends are in denial (Are you talking about me? Go ahead and answer that, I dare you!) – well, all of that reflects more on the editors who are saying those things, than on Martin and anyone else the comments are directed at. And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time. Revised: I'm very sure that quite a few editors who opposed based on the callous and counter-factual reasons I listed here are not going to help with the CCI, although I respect and appreciate those who will help. Unfortunately, they will do that work without any help from Martin, even though he explicitly offered to do so. That's sad, very sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish "And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time." I don't think that's a very fair thing to say to people who might work on it. I am going to try organizing a cleanup for the CCI and I will probably be the person who spends the most time working on it (I spent at least 500 hours cleaning up the Blofeld one). Like all other CCIs I want to complete it as soon as possible with minimal drama. I don't think my comments above are drawing any lines in the sand, I am trying to work through this peacefully. The less help we have, the longer it will take to complete the CCI- I don't think it's fair to Martinevans to have it open for so long, whether he wants to return to editing or not. It seems counterintuitive to want it to be open for longer to spite those not wanting to change the block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Moneytrees:I just re-checked your own comment about this proposal, and you are not one of the people who opposed it. In fact, you said that you would be fine with changing the block (perhaps without a full discussion, although Dianaa has opposed the proposal, so I doubt that she would have made the change as you suggested). All of that taken together, I too do not think of you as having drawn a line in the sand. I wasn't directing that comment at you, and I wouldn't want you to take it personally. I recognize and appreciate that you have been, throughout this dispute, trying to resolve it peacefully. Indeed, when I first made that mentoring offering, so was I – but we can see where that went. So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you. How ironic: there are editors who opposed this proposal, and who will then have created more work for you. You should ask them if they are going to help you, before you ask me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish, who exactly are "those who wanted to spite Martin"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  First, Moneytrees said "to spite those not wanting to change the block." I didn't say that. Then I said "So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you." Let's not take words out of context. Yes, it will be more CCI work without Martin helping, than with him helping. We can quibble over whether or not all those who oppose the not-unblock-but-alter-it are doing it out of spite, but there are certainly some who are doing it for really flawed and really insensitive reasons. And some of them have no intention of helping out with the CCI. Indeed, I pointed out a large number of supposed reasons that are counterfactual, and only one editor has responded to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily expect everyone who participates in a noticeboard discussion about a copyright block to participate in the CCI. I would expect the person volunteering to mentor the blocked party to assist with it, if only to have it be closed faster, although I could understand if you quietly chose not to - it's shit work, firmly in the no fun zone.

  But you are going further than that, making sure to sarcastically announce that you will not be helping out and casting aspersions about "those who wanted to spite Martin". Your response to me doubles down with the suggestion that there are people doing this to spite Martin for some reason, even as you refuse to identify who those mysterious parties might be.

  This behavior is beneath you as an experienced editor. No one in this discussion that I have seen appears to be forming their opinion based on a personal grudge against Martin specifically. I hope you strike your aspersions, and I hope you rethink assisting with the CCI - if not for the sake of the regulars there, then certainly for Martin's sake. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't make it sufficiently clear, but my major concern in saying that was that, as a result of being blocked, Martin, not me, would be prevented from helping with the CCI, even though he had said explicitly that he felt bad and wanted to help. (OK, maybe belatedly.) At the start of this AN thread, I offered to help by mentoring. I'm pretty sure that was a constructive offer, and I said it very sincerely. I've been quite taken aback by how that turned into criticism of me, even though I'm not the topic of this discussion. I don't know, maybe it's the weather. But I've had some time to calm down, and I see a lot of other editors have, too. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Wow! I did not mean to upset you any further. In lieu of "somewhat in denial", I could have said "denying", "ignoring", "failing to confront" the crux of the problem. I can see that "in denial" might suggest to an already aroused reader that I was saying that some users were in need of mental health intervention. But I don't think that's suggested by the text, context, or tone of my remark. Nor have I seen anyone else who was offended by the wording.

  I must say that your "how dare you?" -- an elevated response to my comment -- does seem consistent with my few brief comments on this page. To answer your direct question, I was referring to a group and its interactions. You are among those in the group, so that's the extent to which I was referring to you. My view hasn't changed, and its unclear to me why this heated discussion is still ongoing. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for actually replying to my question, which I had not expected. And I appreciate your effort at clarification. To clarify my own comment, I'm not upset, but rather objecting to what I think were wrong-minded comments. I actually am taking on board the feedback I've been getting here, even if that isn't obvious, but my views haven't changed either. As for why this discussion is still going on, I said yesterday that I thought it had already become moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not. Martinevans has had numerous warnings and numerous chances to correct his behavior. An editor without his level of clout would have been indeffed long ago. He can come back when his CCI is completed; I look forward to his unblock in 2032. This isn't a daycare, this is an encyclopedia, and Martinevans is either unwilling or unable to respect our copyright policies. I don't care if he wrote 5 million articles, he doesn't get special treatment. Copyright infringement puts Wikipedia at risk and cannot be tolerated at all. There are no exceptions, no matter how much one likes the editor in question. I'm quite disappointed by the old boy network that has shown up to protect one of their own here. Until he shows a full and complete understanding of the issues that lead to his block, he should not be allowed to return in any capacity. And no, before someone claims otherwise, he has not done that yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm an old fish, so don't call me a boy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. A block should be the minimum needed to prevent problematic behaviour, and that behaviour has only been in mainspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what a p-block would achieve here. Maybe I've missed something, but it feels like the real-world equivalent of putting petrol in your car and then tossing your keys into the river. I don't know if Martin has made an unblock request, but if he does, and it comes with the usual of admitting their edits are an issue, not to do it again AND to help out with the copyvios that would be a better option IMO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand the supposed benefit to the project here. These copyright investigations are necessary and an enormous drain on everyone's time. If you don't understand how copyright works then you really can't participate in this sort of project. It's at the core of everything we do here. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a note: there are some accusations of "old boy networks" and "friends" that are showing up to defend Martin. When the decision isn't [block/do nothing] but [block/completely ban from mainspace], it's hard to see this as a case of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Nobody seems to be advocating for doing nothing. Speaking as one of the people "defending him" (by supporting a ban from articlespace to try to get him to help clean up the messes he made), I don't know if we've ever interacted outside of perhaps an old noticeboard thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Even though nobody is suggesting a complete unblock here, this is still extremely generous treatment for someone who has done something like this, especially without so much as an unblock request. Normally an experienced editor would get an indefinite block and would only be unblocked if they could make an unblock request showing they understood the problem and that it wouldn't happen again. The exceptions are cases when the blocked editor has a "fan club" who are willing to push back on their behalf in noticeboard discussions, as WP:UNBLOCKABLES describes. Tryptofish has 132 edits to Martinevans123's talk page. Hut 8.5 19:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for counting. If you had bothered to read them, you would have found ones, prior to the start of this dispute, where I advised him that he was doing some things wrong, including some about copyvio, and offered to help him fix it. As for the lack of an unblock request, Martin did say at his talk that he would welcome the opportunity to do something like this, and I was influenced by that when I proposed it, but once he stated that he had decided instead to take a break and reflect on it, I posted here that I thought the proposal was now moot. Personally, I use the phrase "fan club" to refer to those who are unfair critics, looking for a chance to score points, so I guess I'll add you to mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tryptofish's flippant remarks TNT (talk • she/her) 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That seems incredibly unfair. nableezy - 18:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Though not as unfair as "And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time." — with friends like these.... 😌 — TNT (talk • she/her) 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC) No Id say just as unfair if not more. Because as disappointing and mean-spirited as that comment is, Martinevans123 didnt make it, and a sanction against Martinevans123 should be based on his actions and words, not anybody elses. Otherwise yes, just as unfair and mean-spirited. nableezy - 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Nableezy: Thank you for the supportive words, and I obviously agree with you about guilt by association as a rhetorical dodge. I've been around this rodeo enough times that I'm able to brush off these things, although I do push back at them. As for TheresNoTime, I would have expected better from someone with oversight and checkuser responsibilities, but I'll choose to take it as just a flippant remark. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Well to be honest it wasnt supportive of you, I think your comment up above was also unfair to the people who perform thankless tasks like CCI clean up. Diannaa does a ton of work here, and it is mostly tedious and boring and thankless, and to assume that her opposition, or anybody else's, is based on spite is also unfair and mean-spirited. It doesnt excuse a freaking functionary responding in kind though, much less to a third party who is in no way responsible for your words. You are. nableezy - 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I see the distinction that you are making, and that's entirely fair. And you'll see that I previously said that I have no problem with Diannaa's block; and it's also obvious that she is someone who does work on CCIs, so she is not among those I criticized for opposing the block change without being willing to do the CCI work that has to be done. ("So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you.") But I still thank you for pushing back against the guilt by association. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC) AGF means that unless you can demonstrate otherwise you need to at least publicly pretend you believe that those opposed to you are operating in good faith, and not out of spite. And if you did that at least this one oppose !vote may not have even happened. nableezy - 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Again, duly noted. But let's follow your own advice, and keep this about Martin and not about me. I don't think it makes any difference at this point what the !vote count is going to be; Martin says that he's accepting the existing block and using it to reflect. I do wish that more editors here would have shown more AGF towards Martin, instead of making up things about an enemies list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC) @TheresNoTime, this is quite inappropriate. Please reconsider. No editor should be held responsible for a comment made by another editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I think perhaps it would be best if we all stopped badgering my oppose? Dear me... — TNT (talk • she/her) 23:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC) No, you deserve a bit more badgering for that. Opposing one user's block reduction to make a point about another user? Grow up. Our elite editors playing little games like this is why self-governance on Wikipedia is failing (and will end up being ceded to the WMF). Levivich (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC) All of this is only cementing my opinion that the old boys club is out in force. Jeeez, y'all heard of being subtle? — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Tryp and I fought for years about Sashi (he won), we barely tolerate each other, and Nableezy is the only editor banned from my talk page, he took me to ANI last month. Dennis Brown supports this and he just blocked me a few days ago; Rhodo supports this and Rhodo said Dennis's block of me was within discretion at XRV. Some "old boys club"! You think Girth and Black Kite, or Money, who's a CCI admin (all supporting), are also part of this old boys club? You've now moved from opposing one user's block downgrade to make a point about another user, to defending yourself by throwing around labels. Really, really unimpressive. Levivich (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Sorry which "labels" do you think I'm throwing around? — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Old boys club" Levivich (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Oh I see.. sorry. I've struck it — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks. I see you've also struck your oppose vote; just to be clear, don't take any issue with you (or anyone else) opposing the proposal (on the merits). Levivich (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC) It's not every day that we see a steward brazenly troll a block review thread on AN. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Eh I'm an enwp editor first, always will be. Little on the nose for you of all people to accuse my oppose of trolling 🤣 — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC) I'm glad to see you are putting the 'pedia first by using personal attacks to double-down on a spite vote. You clearly know nothing about me, or you would realize I am the furthest thing from an 'old boys club' member. Nobody is out to get you; we'd just like to see some acknowledgement that every editor (including those with perfectly valid indef blocks for copyright vios) should be given the basic courtesy of not having to answer for someone else's behavior. Is this really so complicated? Do you have nothing better to offer in response than flippant red herrings? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Hm. You're right. I've struck that. Thank you. — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Badgering would be showing up on your talk page demanding you resign all your advanced permissions. After you had already struck your troll-level !vote of course. Ill never get the cliques of this place. Youre a freaking functionary, jfc. nableezy - 00:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're referring to a recent RfA there — if so, you're also aware I apologized, and there's no hard feelings. But by all means leave that out 🤷‍♀️ — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Im glad you did so there, and Im glad you struck this here. nableezy - 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This would only be workable, if his mentor is shown what he wants to add or delete from a page. The mentor would then judge the proposed edit as acceptable or not (i.e. if it's copyright violation or not). If acceptable the mentor would be allowed to make that (via proxy) edit. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct about that. It's what I offered to do – on those terms – at the start of the discussion, but clearly that is something that will have to be postponed to some later time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a grand proposal & hopefully will be adopted, someday. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban Tryptofish, mainly per their remark below regarding Ritchie. I suggest a ban since it is the standard procedure for failed standard offers. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yawn. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Misread Tryptofish's request. In this case, I have no further comments. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - if he requests this and agrees to use his time here to help out in the CCI then support. But allowing somebody to muse in userspace or project space without doing the work to fix their mistakes to me is a non-starter. He has to IMO a. want and request such an unblock, and b. agree to help out in the CCI. Then sure p-block. nableezy - 00:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! said Zebedee above. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia's copyright policies are very important. (They're very important to me personally, too). Kudos to those editors who invest a lot of time an energy in this sloping field of scree. Kindness is important. (Again, to me personally as well). Kudos to Tryptofish for overall tryptic and inspiring kindness. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  You're thanking the editor who's repeatedly attacked others in this very thread for kindness? Are we even reading the same discussion? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I guess we're reading it differently, that's all. Not that uncommon in my world. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's remember, on Wikipedia, it's unkind to offer to mentor a user who needs help, and it's unkind to take up an idea first raised by other editors, and make a proposal that, in fact, would still have left the blocked user largely blocked, and it's most definitely unkind not to let falsehoods stand. After all, criticizing someone via false statements in an oppose is just AGF, but pointing out the falsehoods is a failure of AGF, because everyone has a right to oppose a proposal without having anyone else reply to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  You'll note I have not criticized you for offering to mentor Martinevans123. I don't necessarily have any problem with that, though I think it's also a nonstarter until and unless Martinevans actually fully addresses the issues that lead to him being blocked. You can want to help him, but he also has to be willing to be helped, and to demonstrate he understands copyright, what a copyright violation is, and how to create articles without violating copyright in the process. I don't have an issue with him as a person, but his editing has been wholly unacceptable, as demonstrated in detail by SandyGeorgia farther down this thread. What I do have a problem with is you repeatedly casting aspersions, assuming bad faith, and in general bludgeoning the hell out of this thread (I count 36 comments by you here thus far). Your snarky comments and borderline attacks on CCI editors were totally uncalled for. In a nutshell, you've more than made your point of view clear here. Continuing to comment on everything is not doing you any favors, and you've toed if not crossed the line several times as far as ABF and casting aspersions are concerned. I recommend you let other people have a say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  My objection is to your bludgeoning harshly criticizing someone else, who merely committed the sin of thanking me. You could have expressed your say without condemning someone just for having said thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please review the definition of bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON) . "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." I have made 4 comments here, including this one. You have made 38 and counting. It is completely wrong, and a personal attack, for you to falsely accuse me of "bludgeoning", as described at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Review your own behavior, which by and large has been reprehensible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck and revised the word bludgeoning. You want diffs? Here they are: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. Every one of those is a diff by Martin on his talk page, expressing sincere remorse over what he did, seeking to better understand how to do it the right way, and expressing a wish to clean up after himself. I'll stipulate that this is all post-block, and not everything is perfect. But I've shown, with no shortage of diffs, that he is willing to be helped. You said just above, without diffs, that he still has to show that he is willing to be helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Come to think of it, isn't it an attack to fault someone for thanking someone else, and in so doing, attack the person who was being thanked? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  When an editor withdraws a comment by striking through it they are acknowledging they were wrong to make it and apologizing for it. Continuing to hold it over them is just as crappy as having made it to begin with. Though Tryptofish, and I say this as somebody who has trouble not responding to crap when I see it, there comes a point where the number of times a username appears has a direct negative correlation with their preferred action occurring. Being able to recognize that point with my own username is still a weak spot, but I can sure as hell see it in other usernames. nableezy - 03:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose having looked at this list, individual clearly has complete and utter disregard for copyright and is a liability to the project, being a longstanding editor, there really is no excuse for not comprehending policy. Embarrassing. Acousmana 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I see you've been here since 2016, and just since the beginning of last year, you have about 7 warnings for edit-warring and the like on your talk page. Embarrassing? (Yes, I know I should probably back out of here, but sheesh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  a petty comment that's almost as embarrassing as the list of egregious copyvios. Acousmana 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  My comment pretty much exactly tracked yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  No your comment is a petty ad hominem. You feel disgruntled that an editor has a view that runs contrary to yours. In your imagined hierarchical ordering of things "experienced" editors deserve a carte blanche when it comes to laissez faire editing. That my friend is some bullshit right here. Acousmana 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  But telling me what I believe, even when it's contrary to what I've said, is not petty. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  whoa, my friend, are you that bored? seriously, step away from the screen. Acousmana 20:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: We can all see this user's talk page, their edits and the nature of their comments here, and can make our own obvious assessment. Nothing to be gained from responding. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Acousmana ...aside from that, to be clear, not every edit on that list is a copyright violation- it's simply a review of every major edit the user has made. In fact, the vast majority of them are most likely not, I would guess only 20% at maximum are issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  ah, OK, so only about 1057 violations then. Acousmana 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a deeply unfortunate case. I don't know this editor, but I encourage everyone supporting this partial unblock, especially Trypto, to select fifteen articles at random from the CCI and clean them. (The more the better, of course!) I'd estimate 75% of large (>2000 character) prose contributions (i.e., contributions that are not additions of tables nor reverts) contain copyright violations. WP:C is fundamental and nonnegotiable policy, one of the few with legal ramifications. I can't support an partial unblock with mentorship, unless both the mentors and Martinevans himself show an earnest desire to assist at this Augean stable of copyright infringement. Some people have already stepped up, so thank you to them. For Martinevans, as a start, I suggest he help by providing access to obscure sources that he's used, for example Dean, Richard, (1988), Gawthorpe Hall - Lancashire (see Gawthorpe Hall). From his talk page he can state whether the associated edits were problematic/explain his thinking, then others (e.g., mentors) can check his work and deal with the edits at CCI. That addresses concerns of both accountability and actual understanding of copyright. But addressing this mess will take thousands of editor-hours; not funny at all. Ovinus (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I now read through his user talk (should've realized there'd be more discussion there) and I think there's hope. I'll ask for sources there, as I suggested. But not a partial block yet imo. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Acousmana. I don't see why such a longstanding user with more than 200,000 live edits should be having issues with one of the most crucial Wikipedia policies. Even though not every edit on the list they provided may be a copyright violation, "only 20% maximum" is still deeply concerning. With this in mind, an indefinite block is more than justified and fair here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of a mainspace p-block. If an editor cannot be allowed to edit the mainspace, I don't think we need to engineer a way for them to edit in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - basically this mess is going to be easier to sort out if Martin is willing to work with the community that it is going to be without his input. Given that there are editors willing to mentor Martin, we should try this. As has been said above, should the prove not to be effective, we can always revert to indef. It is at least worth trying. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts from a probably involved Ritchie333

I've just come to this and I don't really know what to say, except to give a few pertinent views.

• I like Martinevans123.
• I can't fault Diannaa's block. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios explains most of my thoughts, although that's more geared towards deletion instead of blocking.
• I note from Martin's block log that at least one earlier block was criticised and overturned on review.
• I am happy to be a mentor to Martin, however I'm probably not the right person to do so as everyone will think I have a conflict of interest. Specifically, while I'm happy to hear that an unblock might be considered when Martinevans123 can "provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future", it does strike me that I've basically written an essay providing the answers. I would recommend the same course of action that was offered to elisa.rolle (talk · contribs) - I can't remember the specifics but I note she was indef blocked for copyvio, and subsequently unblocked. So there is precedent.
• The CCI, sounds like a truly thankless task - it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. I might see if I can drop in to help a bit.
• Although I set up a CCI for Edelmand (talk · contribs), I didn't block them, though I appreciate in that specific case it was because they had gone inactive. I probably would have blocked if they had returned to editing (almost certainly if those edits contained copyvios).

So I don't really have any answers at the moment, just some thoughts that might be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Psst Ritchie: don't even hint at an offer to be a mentor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations from SandyGeorgia

Each of us can help out at the CCI by checking the pages we have edited in common with Martinevans123 (located through the editor interaction tool).

In checking my interactions with Martinevans123, I found some concerning edits, which any potential mentors might take into account.

• Georges Gilles de la Tourette, helpful but unformatted ref [32]
• James Joyce, no violation found [33] content subsequently removed, not FA level
• Beaver, no violation found [34] content subsequently removed, not FA level

But I found concerning edits at what was then an FA, autism:

• 17:49, July 16, 2014 inserts cut-and-paste from BBC source, not a WP:MEDRS compliant source
• 20:20, July 16, 2014 after revert, reinserts the same cut-and-paste text but citing it to a different primary source, still not WP:MEDRS compliant
• 20:36 July 16, 2014 after second revert, inserts the same cut-and-paste text from the BBC, but cited to now a third source: the source does not verify the text.
• 20:46 July 16, 2014, Doc James corrects the source and adjusts the text; the unhelpful, rather meaningless statement remains in the article today.

This is admittedly a very old example, and I usually found Martinevans123 to be a helpful editor, but these edits were made seven years after he started editing, and may be an indication that other mentorable issues include MEDRS, EDITWARring, and source-to-text integrity.

In trying to find the right page of the CCI to enter my checks, I found that it would be helpful if there were links at the top of each CCI page leading to the next and previous CCI page, eg links between Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02 and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 03, where I was looking for the entries for articles we had edited in common. As the autism edits are so old, I assume they don't need to be scrubbed at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, I'm still trying to figure out what a p-block is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A "partial" block – one that only affects certain pages, namespaces, or non-editing actions, see here. Often used for 3RR violations (blocking people only from the page they were edit warring on) and copyright blocks (blocking people from main- and draftspace). --Blablubbs (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (I note that Wikipedia:P-block is red. At The Time of This Writing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. The link is now blue. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also suggest potential mentors to take the time to explain BLP policy, e.g. Special:Diff/860013167, Special:Diff/1070643576 and Special:Diff/1047214533 (found during clean up). Ovinus (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Deeper in now, an additional concern is emerging about the checking; I have seen editors mark diffs as cleared of copyvio when they have blatant cut-and-paste. It looks like the CCI checkers are going to have to check some of the CCI checks. Most likely, mine, too!

I have scanned dozens of diffs that are outright cut-and-paste that I don't have time to fix, so I have to just pass them by and leave them for the next editor; one has to either have the time to rewrite the content, or if it's insignificant enough, remove it and, in either case, request a revdel. Because I'm still COVID-groggy, I have been copping out and looking for the short and easy ones, of which there aren't many-- passing over the cut-and-paste diffs as I go.

But I did finally come across the first instance I've seen of what looked like it could have been considerable original content written by Martinevans123 here. Now, I'm not a chemist and I don't know if dimethyl sulfate and dimethyl sulfone are the same thing, so the content could have been at the wrong article, but the edit was immediately reverted as not helpful content at that article. So at this stage I am yet to find the value added.

This brings me to a question that I hope either Martinevans123 himself, or anyone advocating for an unblock, will answer before I enter an opinion on the block proposal above (which I haven't done yet); could someone please produce an example of a significant amount of original content written by Me123? I have not yet come across one; I have mostly focused on page two of the CCI. What is the most valuable work done by Martinevans123, and what is an example of his original content that he is most proud of, that isn't just adding quotes or infoboxes or filling in bare refs?

As a followup to that, if he truly wanted to help on the CCI, he could be making lists now in his userspace ... it is clear by now that most of his content additions are cut-and-paste. It would be much simpler on all of us if he just let us know, yea or nay, whether most of his book-sourced content is also cut-and-paste, for example. And if every time he cites the BBC, it's cut-and-paste, so we don't have to check (I haven't found one that's not). If Martinevans123 wants to help, and wants to be unblocked or partially unblocked, he could be lending a hand right now, by just stating the facts so we don't have to look so hard to find them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. Those diffs are old, but since the removal was done right away, it's still possible to do revision deletion. I have now done so. — Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I continued looking beyond my own article interaction with Me123, and there is a consistent amount of cut-and-paste copyvio everywhere I look, whether old or recent. As a non-admin, it's hard to know how to best help without constantly pinging for revdel; continued on Diannaa's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now spent 10 hours investigating just a very few of the diffs at the CCI. My focus was on the second page, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02, where it can be seen that in many of the 20-article sections, I have found as many as four copyvios, and I haven't checked but a fraction of those to be checked. This is no small amount of copyvio.

Considering what I have seen in only one night's work, I believe this statement by Martinevans123 to be either disingenuous, or woefully obtuse:

As valereee has kindly pointed out, this was a "copy-paste-edit-save" i.e. there was actually some "edit" there, where I tried to re-write the original prose and leave out all the material I could not re-write. Obviously I did not try hard enough. I find it incredibly difficult to "paraphrase" lists of facts in chronological order e.g. the galleries where Smith had exhibitions. I also attributed everything of course, probably explaining why I was blocked within five minutes. I'm not sure what percentage of my 205,768 edits have received copyvio warnings. But in this situation, it seems that all of the other edits count for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The pattern is clear, and it is not a one-off, or a mistake, or a limited incident, nor can it be explained as rare hurried edits. It is frequent, habitual, and long-standing failure to display any understanding of copyright, and it is quite surprising that it has taken this long for it to be detected, as it is quite frequently outright cut-and-paste from news sources like the BBC. It is not limited to lists of facts. It does not appear to be related to being in a hurry, rather to habitual editing practices, and having no respect for copyright in spite of the number of years editing. It is hard to find any good content creation, between the overquoting and cut-and-paste.

I am unsure how mentoring can turn around this kind of disrespect, but if a mentorship is to be considered, it will require more diligence than seen here. In more than one case, the copyvio text has already been carried via WP:CWW to and from other articles. (See sample at Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing.)

I am curious to hear why those offering to mentor believe that the capacity to help on the CCI exists, and why those (???same editors???) who have edited closely with Martinevans123 never saw this before; it's everywhere, and it's not subtle, and it's been going on since 2007, right up to at least 2021. The only edits I looked at where I don't find copyvio are things like formatting citations and adding infoboxes. I'd like to not enter an Oppose on the proposed WP:P-block, but I am finding it hard to understand the value of having multiple editors spend time helping someone learn the basic and obvious.

Considering the amount of cut-and-paste found, do we need to assume that book sources are also cut-and-paste? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for doing all that work. I've interacted closely with Martin, mostly in userspace, but I have done very little content work with him, so I have not been in the habit of checking his content work. In fact, despite statements to the contrary in this discussion (which, let's face it, has gotten way too heated for anyone's good, on any "side" of the dispute), when issues about his copyvios have been raised on his talk page, I have responded more than any others of his talk page participants by trying (probably not firmly enough, in hindsight) to explain the problem to him, and I have taken it on myself to rewrite the material that needed to be rewritten. One comment by me, about a copyvio where the way to rewrite it was particularly hard to see (mostly names of family members and bandmates), has gotten far more attention here than due weight would call for, but even in that incident, it was me who went and repaired his edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully we can turn our attention, soon, to ways of catching similar sooner. I see that starting to happen below. Cleaning up after the fact is SO much work, and done by so few. I was urged to check out the diffs at the CCI because I did not previously hold a negative impression of Martinevans123, but was dismayed to think that encouragement of serial copyvio offendors might take hold on his talk page (as I have seen in other instances). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing that sticks out to me most was that Martinevans was warned several times for this behavior, but did not seem to adjust his methods. I believe it was in good faith, but I'm not sure if this was just a communication issue on everyone else's part (that people just needed to be more firm). Of course that would have helped... but what if people who have made copyright violations in main space were put on probation where their edits would be scrutinized by, say, putting them on a bot-generated list? Regardless of their edit count and tenure? Then, after they've made some number of appreciable prose changes without issues of copyright, they can be removed from the list. Yes, it would require extra oversight and work, but such prophylaxis would more than make up for the time, by preventing mega CCIs. But I'm not an admin, much less a copyright-focused one, so I'm not sure how practicable that'd be. Ovinus (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In that regard, something that could easily be done by any admin going forward from right now would be, once a copyvio is found, if the editor who made it is someone who looks like they can still be a net positive, to issue the standard warning, but then, tell the editor that they, themselves, must clean up any copyvios before doing other work, and that they will be blocked if they don't do that. (That's another way of saying "probation".) That would be somewhat less than the bot list, but it also would be fairly straightforward. And it would be a good preventative for cases like the one here, because the editor would have to confront the issue right away, and would be much less likely to keep on doing it until the situation reaches what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make this work in practice. Editors with persistent problems in copying sources generally need assistance to understand how to rewrite text, and someone will need to verify the results. Editors that are felt to be net positives often have hundreds if not thousands of edits. Editors who haven't already responded to feedback by going back and reviewing their own edits are probably not strongly motivated to work solely on re-examining hundreds/thousands of edits. I do like the principle in theory of cleaning up after yourself, but I think a quick trigger on asking editors to only review their own work would serve to dissuade a lot of diligent editors who slipped up once, without much gained benefit from those with a longer history of problems. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Isaacl on both points. It’d be nice if we could train someone up to understand copyright and then let them clean up after themselves. But—and I don’t mean to be doubting good faith or be demeaning—it requires continuous and strict oversight. As to the “slipping up once thing”—yeah, I can see that, but how often does that happen? The length of the period could be adjusted based on the severity of the edits. But maybe that’s needless bureaucracy… anyway, back to work Ovinus (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As recent as February 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

June 27, 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We may have to do that; I found copy-paste from a book source yesterday, in Greenhalgh Castle. If all his other prose additions are copied or lightly/poorly paraphrased, we will at some point have to make the assumption that the content sourced to books needs to be removed too. Results so far are very grim, sorry to say. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm finding unsourced content in smaller diffs across a lot of different years. Most of it is written basically enough that even without a source I can safely say it isn't closely paraphrased. Some of it isn't that basic, and without knowing where it came from, at this point we may need to presumptively rewrite, especially with this high of a frequency. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion on possibility of a Copyvio algorithm

Tangential discussion on possibility of a Copyvio algorithm
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Imagine a copyvio algorithm that does nothing but crawl our existing autopatrolled articles for copyvios (checking dates of creation to weed-out mirrors & forks) like the copyvio checked articles in the NPP queue, only more refined and automatically paraphrased by a program like quillbot]. Ahhhh...heavenly automation. Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Imagine the WMF using some of their $400 million to hire people to monitor and fix copyvio instead of relying on volunteers. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Nice thought (ala fat chance :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 400 million makes it sound like that's their annual revenues, which it is not. That said, I bet the Foundation would spend money on this in some form or fashion, if there was consensus it was appropriate for this to be a foundation activity rather than that of volunteers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Their $400 million" means their assets, or to be specific, I'm counting endowment + cash reserves + one years' revenue = the amount of money they have. Of course not all of it can be spent, but the point is, they have enough money for this. As to whether the community would find it appropriate, it really doesn't matter, the WMF is already doing copyright enforcement, such as DMCA takedown notices, because it's required by law. And of course the community is fine with that. They can expand that so that they're not waiting for take-down notices and are instead, say, coding software that crawls articles and flags potential copyvio for further manual review. BK, this is a weird one to push back on. Of course the community would appreciate the WMF doing more here. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) That's a very interesting idea Atsme.... — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) I'm not a fan of the idea of automatic rewriting of text (as far as I know, automatic translation, a similar type of problem, doesn't have consensus support on English Wikipedia to be used by editors mechanically without oversight), but I agree that more tools can be good. There must be plenty of university computer science and linguistics departments willing to partner with the Wikimedia Foundation to do research on the problem of detecting copyright violations. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Could a bot be created that runs Earwig on pages? Like doing automatically some of the things described at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC) We only have a limited number of free "looks" supplied by Google per day; the number is 10,000, which sounds huge but is actually barely adequate just for the manual checks we perform. So random walks cannot be done. (This is the type of search where we click the "Use search engine" box. We have unlimited use of the comparison tool, where we enter a url in the "URL comparison" field.) — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC) That's interesting. Would using other search engines help? Or could a bot identify, from the reference citation, the URL to put into the comparison tool? (I realize that won't work for unreferenced content, but that could be deleted for simpler reasons.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC) If there were to be a workable way to do this, we have Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Tryp - see NPP's wishlist: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Phab list. These are among some of the things I've proposed in general to the BoT to strategize and help put me in contact with the right people at WMF. Atsme 💬 📧 23:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks Atsme, I see you're already several steps ahead of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC) I've personally always found the search engine function not very helpful; the number of times it has turned up stuff other than mirrors has been low. The Turnitin option, on the other hand, would probably be more useful- I believe it has access to academic books and journals, which Earwig struggles with- but I don't think it has ever worked for me... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) How would such a "copyvio algorithm" be able to distinguish between copvios and attributed quotations (or passages copied from PD sources)? We wouldn't want direct quotations to be "automatically paraphrased", presumably. Deor (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Teach the algorithm what to look for - it can be done. I'm not a programmer/coder, but think about it - " " marks could signal the first "if", or we can use specific wiki code that indicates a quote...like {{quotebox | yada yada.}}. New articles come through NPP, and we have Earwig EranBot that pre-checks and alerts us (in our curation tool) to the possibility of a copyvio that we confirm using Earwig.corrected 02:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC) What we don't have is a copyvio crawler that catches all the other stuff, like kidnapped redirects, autopatrolled articles, and other situations where articles make it into main space with copyvios. There are so many algorithms out there now, it makes WP look like a dinosaur: MIT, Tech at Meta, you'll love this and it's coming our way, as is this from popsci, ugh, this, and of course Google is working on it, too. I've already submitted a proposal to our BoT, and our team at NPP is working with WMF techs but we could always use community support to help us convince them that it's time to automate the menial tasks, and protect the project from an onslaught of spam AI articles - both the good and bad. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC) As a minor correction, the "potential copyvio" alerts in the curation tool actually come from EranBot (and listed at CopyPatrol), and it does include new autopatrolled articles, removal of redirects, and large additions of text to existing articles. It's not perfect by any means, but it does mean that new articles are evaluated in this way regardless of whether they are autopatrolled – in fact, it's how Martinevans123's (autopatrolled) creation of Sam Smith (English sculptor) was flagged. I agree, however, that there is much room for potential improvement in our systems. DanCherek (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks, Dan - I conflated the process, not knowing the name of the pre-check bot. I use Earwig if the curation tool warns of a potential copyvio. If we can get a really good algorithm that has limited potential for f-ups, I don't see how it can hurt to crawl the site for potential copyvios, even if the articles date back to the early days and were never checked. Atsme 💬 📧 01:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC) I can't help but wonder if the code for this open-source project which compares linked content to what has been cited to see if it's there, couldn't be modified for this task. To me, the not AI programmer, the task of "is this not present" and "is this WAY too much present" seem close but I could also be asking for birds rather than National Parks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC) That code could be refined and work quite well for us at NPP. Verifying & finding sources is one of the items I've mentioned for NPP. For example, when we come across articles that are unsourced, AI can find and cite the sources. At the same time, AI can help us weed out hoaxes by checking to see if the cited sources support the material. There is so much potential to cut down or entirely eliminate some of the menial tasks. I'm pinging Shani (WMF) so she can review the discussion starting at the arbitrary break section because the links I provided above, Barkeep's sideeditor link, and the copyvio detection/fix suggestions all align with what we've proposed relative to a dedicated tech team for NPP. It may also fit nicely with the strategies the BoT is/has been considering. It should probably be presented to our CEO for consideration as well. Atsme 💬 📧 02:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Technologies like Quillbot are far, far from ready from being able to produce non-human-reviewed, acceptable text. The Side program was linked; even that, supported by a team of engineers, requires human review. However, a program that identifies these pages and puts them in a queue is possible in the near future. The WMF has other priorities that are just as important; I can name Growth Features, Moderator Tools and the Wikipedia Library off the top of my head. If you want something coded, ask Community Tech in the next Wishlist. And please, please don't say that it'll get stuck in an endless black hole of Wishes - CommTech is the best solution we have so far. As an example, Wish #4, an extension that Google reverse image searches Commons images and puts them in a queue, is not actively being worked on by the team, but a community member has picked it up. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC) While Atsme's vision isn't something that can be put together by some random guy on an idle Saturday, there are nevertheless some benefits we could gain via automation. I was playing around with Earwig's API today and put together a very rudimentary script that takes a list of pages, runs it through Earwig (checking against external links only, not a full search engine search), and spits out a sortable wikitable that lists the pages and the highest Earwig %. I ran it on Pages 901-920 of Martin's CCI, and you can see the output at User:Levivich/copycheck and the source at User talk:Levivich/copycheck. Again, this is really rudimentary, but at least we can use a script like this to (relatively easily) identify the pages that are the most likely to have a problem, and this could help prioritize a CCI cleanup. The script could be expanded in a number of ways; it could be a bot that runs automatically; it could use more of the API, etc. FYI/CC: Moneytrees, TheresNoTime, and SandyGeorgia. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC) - if I knew how to code, first thing I would do is instruct the bot to ignore proper names and titles. Atsme 💬 📧 01:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Awesome work Levivich, thank you! I've added this to my to-do list, and that'll make for a nice Sunday afternoon of hacking 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 02:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC) That's an impressive start! But I don't understand why we no longer have a bot we used to have (was it Corenbot ??? Or something else) that checked every new article. And one thing that I've noticed on this CCI is how many people are pitching in to help. If everyone goes and has a look at just a few section of the CCI, they'll see how much work it is, how much specialist knowledge is needed, and why it is so important we catch copyviolators early. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC) I presume because we have 7 million articles, and that's a lot. CopyPatrol already looks for new articles, but if we want something to root through them all, a MediaWiki extension is a better structure. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC) This is nice! :) I'm glad to know there's an API for Earwig's tool. For this CCI case in particular the copyvio checker isn't particularly accurate, for example [35] is not gonna pop up, but I think there are some heuristics (ratio of prose to ref count, for example) that would be feasible to automate. For general CCI it seems very useful. Ovinus (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This AN discussion

I'm fully aware that I've been told that I've been making too many comments in this discussion, but I feel that this is necessary for me to add, and I'm very sure that it's constructive. I've been trying to figure out why this discussion has been pushing my buttons to such a large degree, as I am not someone who makes a habit of this sort of thing, and something important has occurred to me.

This hasn't simply been an AN discussion by the community about the issue that Diannaa raised in the opening post. It's become something really mean-spirited, really ugly. And I've realized that a lot of the criticism of Martin has taken the form of what is all too often seen elsewhere online. It happens all the time, at social media sites and in comment sections. I want to be very clear that I'm not saying this about everyone, but it does apply to some here. People make themselves feel better by, anonymously, grouping up to say exagerrated negative things about whatever is at hand.

Martin got blocked for doing something genuinely wrong, and I want to be very clear that that's on him. But Martin also got cancelled, and that's on us.

Those, including me, who are looking for constructive solutions that still include Martin being blocked and that require him to take an active role in fixing his mistakes before he can return to doing anything else here, are being told that we want to give him carte blanche. That doesn't even make sense; it's just over-the-top. And someone who merely said thank you was attacked for having said that. Not simply being disagreed with, but being told that they must be out of touch with reality. What does that say about us as a community? What comes next, reverting barnstars?

I have no illusions that I'm perfect, and I've walked back some of the things that I originally said. And so have some of those who see the issue differently. I thank them.

This happened here in a pretty big way, but it isn't something new. WP:CESSPIT has long been a shortcut to ANI. And I remember from very early in my editing, a time when a posse of single-purpose meatpuppets showed up from the Something Awful website, to deplore the supposed wrong of including an image from a manga on a page. At the time, more than a decade ago, there was simply a perception here that anyone can edit, and we had to just count their !votes like anyone else's, so the image was deleted at FFD. Since then, of course, we've learned how to use Template:spa, and that wouldn't happen today. Now, we need to learn how to conduct a discussion of an editor's wrongdoing without spilling over into wild exagerrations of what the person had done. It should be possible to review a block without going beyond a sober and objective examination of the facts. Just as we have come to learn how to discount SPAs, we need to learn how to make administrative noticeboards less of a cesspit and more of a place for determining how to get back to constructive editing. Not virtue-signaling by exagerrating how awful somebody was.

We, collectively, need to figure out how to do better.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish I suspect you will find this comment rude, but you didn't offer any suggestions to "sort this out". Perhaps you could move your opinions to the talk page or the Village Pump? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right that it was a poor choice of header, so I changed it, thanks. But I feel strongly that it needs to be here (we already have tangents about CCI bots and the like), and I would object strongly to moving it elsewhere. (Once the discussion gets closed and archived, I'd be happy to pursue it further at the Pump or elsewhere.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Another good reason for it to be here is to make it visible to admins, who play an important role in setting the tone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If I could have Martin unblocked & you set up as Martin's mentor? Then it would be so. Alas, it's not entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. But I really don't see my comment here as being about changing the block. What I want is to address the larger, and very real, problems with this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But, I can't elaborate on that 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that indefinitely blocking someone for serial copyright violations, and editors agreeing that the block was appropriate, is "cancelling", you clearly are too biased to be of any use in this discussion. There's zero way to spin this - Martin has committed massive levels of copyright violations, as we have already learned in the CCI (I personally removed multiple instances of blatant copying earlier today). He cannot be allowed to edit, in order to protect the encyclopedia from further damage. That's not "cancelling", that's protecting us from getting sued out of existence and preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. You're allowed to think highly of Martin and be his friend. But just because he's your friend doesn't mean he gets special treatment, and every post you make here actively hurts his chances of ever getting any sort of unblock. You're making things worse by acting ridiculously. This subsection you just created is incredibly foolish. Please, if you actually want to see Martin able to edit one day, STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD. JUST STOP. He's not getting unblocked anytime soon, and again, you are only making things worse for him with your participation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

protecting us from getting sued out of existence All other things aside, this is extremely hyperbolic. What would actually happen is that the WMF would get a DMCA take-down notice, and then they'd take down the offending copyvio, per their DMCA policy. It is very important that we don't have copyvios or plagiarism on the website, but not because we're going to get sued, or get sued out of existence. When volunteers clean up copyvio, they are protecting the integrity of the project, but they are not really protecting it from legal liability; that's handled by WMF Legal. It doesn't really help to go about spreading the falsehood that CCI is what's keeping us from being sued out of existence. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The DMCA does require a service provider to have has adopted and reasonably implemented...a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers ([36], p.26). If you don't do that then you lose the protection of being a service provider (which would be very bad). Now I have no legal training, and there may well be something which means that clause doesn't apply to this case, but we know very well that this user is a repeat infringer and we are seriously considering allowing them to continue to edit anyway. If nothing else I can't see regulators or the public reacting well to this. Hut 8.5 08:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

and we are seriously considering allowing them to continue to edit anyway Nobody is doing any such thing; a p-block from mainspace prevents an editor from editing. As for the DMCA, having a group of untrained random volunteers from the internet patrol for copyvio is not a reasonable policy. The WMF are doing things to ensure DMCA compliance, and relying on the volunteer community is not one of those things. Nothing we volunteers do matters when it comes to legal liability. It matters to us, it matters to the readers, but it won't matter to the courts. Levivich (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont really buy the canceling bit, an indefinite blocking is not a community ban. Martin is still free to request an unblock when he can demonstrate that he is able to understand and comply with WP:C. Hell Id assume Diannaa would herself change the block given that demonstration. Some of the opposes seem unreasonable, but you are taking nearly all of them as an attack on Martin and an attack on you. I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this). I dont know all the overlapping and conflicting cliques here, but you can see some of the opposes, and some of the supports seemingly, are based on those shifting alliances. How to fix something like that? No clue. Maybe any person that has had any positive or negative direct interaction with Martin gets one comment and no responses. But I think your framing here is showing your closeness and friendship with Martin, I cant otherwise explain calling this canceling. nableezy - 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have had no interactions with martin and have nothing against him, beyond the fact that he committed large quantities of copyright violations for years. He seems like a nice person to me. But unfit to edit here I'm afraid. I am being militant because too many times copyright concerns are ignored until we end up with situations like this. And I fear any sort of unblock will only bring us back here again with even more copyright violations to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Then drop the anger and the derision. It isnt necessary. nableezy - 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with everything Nableezy said. (Including I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this).) Really, I don't know what the point of this whole thread is anymore. It's not doing any good for anyone. As far as I can see, the only thing to be done is for Martin to work on his understanding of copyvio (if he wants to come back) and let's see whare we are once he's done that. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me the thread has done a lot of good, as lots of editors are pitching in to help at a very large CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. Even though I still feel his block should be upheld, it's not like Martinevans has been banished to the shadow realm, never allowed to read or edit any Wikimedia project again. Not only should the community hold him accountable for his persistent copyright violations, but Martinevans should hold himself accountable as well. Ultimately, I hope that he'll acknowledge his wrongdoings and do better in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate to pile on here, but I'd also ask Tryptofish to please relent. No one here has a vendetta against Martin, I have never met him and I hate putting people down. While some of the opposes above were truly mean-spirited, most simply reflect genuine frustration with severe violations of policy. You say, and I agree, that we mustn't spill over into wild exaggerations of what the person had done, but I don't see where that's really happened. That's why I suggest you take a random sampling of his edits to understand the extent of the problem. I hope this particular discussion can be soon closed and discussion move to CCI or Martin's user talk, as appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Canceling does not mean ban. It means performatively condemning him beyond what actually is the case, even though what happened is indeed bad. I never said anyone was doing it out of a vendetta. And I said quite clearly that it was not everyone, but rather some. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Challenging the NAC at Talk:Technoblade's RfC

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

---

I wish there was somewhere other than WP:AN to bring this but according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE this is the place to bring this. This is not an attempt to argue the underlying dispute, only to challenge the rationale of the closing comment.

There was an RfC on Talk:Technoblade about the use of various sources supporting a statement in the article. This comment was closed by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers in this comment here. In this closing comment, he made the rationale that there was no consensus for PinkNews as a source because two editors were for it and two editors were against it. Nothing wrong there (even if he admits that he completely overlooked one person's comment disagreeing with SMH as a source). However, he then said that because two people were for SMH as a source and only one person was against it (again he overlooked one comment against this source) that this makes a consensus for its use. Later in his closing comment that number somehow became four supporters for it without explanation, and in his talk page comment the number again changed to three supporters. He then goes on in the closing comments to make a recommendation that the PinkNews source in the article should be replaced with the SMH source because PinkNews has no consensus for its inclusion, whereas SMH does.

As of his last talk page comment (I've already linked it above but it is here) he is saying that a 2:2 split over a source is not a consensus, but a 3:2 split over a source is a consensus, and therefore the article should use the version with the consensus for it and replace the source originally used. This last part was specifically his recommendation, something that I am not alone in being concerned about as the administrator BusterD also went to his talk page about this. There was no argument that the quality of the supporting comments for SMH were superior and based on policy or anything, just that it was a 3:2 vote, and that 3 is 1 higher than 2 therefore it's a consensus. When there's roughly the same amount of editors opposing and supporting something, that is not a consensus, and this is my issue with the close, is that because one additional person supported one thing than the other, it's being defined as a consensus and then being used at the closer's personal recommendation that the one source replace the other, something there was no consensus for, especially when taking into account that the closer overlooked one of the commenters when deciding his close.

I am asking that this close be reviewed as I believe that the rationale that a 3:2 split over a source creates consensus for it is a flawed argument inconsistent with Wikipedia's understanding of what a consensus is, as it is not a simple vote where the higher number decides the outcome, especially when the numbers are otherwise even but off by 1.

I have notified Iamreallygoodatcheckers and also BusterD since I mentioned him above. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that if you're closing an RfC that has four different options but which only five editors replied to, you're going to struggle to find consensus on anything unless everyone agrees. Having said that, I don't see any consensus whatsoever to avoid using PinkNews. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I want to be very clear, there is no consensus against using PinkNews. The last statement is what I felt would limit future contention; it's not supposed to be a mandate against PinkNews. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the no consensus comment, it's that you're saying there is a consensus for the other source, and how you then lean on that supposed consensus to make your own opinion in a closing comment that the first source should be replaced, rather than sticking to a summary of the discussion. There was no consensus for what you claimed there was, especially when by your own admission you overlooked one of the commenters contesting what you said there was consensus for. - Aoidh (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I said SMH had a rough consensus because many people in the discussion spoke highly of it and believed it to be reliable; a total of 4 people in the discussion believed it to be reliable. Only 2 didn't want it's use. There was even one person who preferred a primary source being used but still expressed that they believed the SMH specifically was important for establishing WEIGHT. The only reasons PinkNews was ruled no consensus was because it got a little less support. I think the fact that 4 (a majority of the 7 total !votes) with literally 4 options believed this source was usable amounts to a rough consensus. I think that is reasonable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, the only editor who specifically suggested that SMH was a better source than PinkNews was someone who'd been summoned by a bot to a page that they don't appear ever to have edited... Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There were 2 who recommended it, but I don't that is relevant to this discussion because the closing should not be construed to say PinkNews should be replaced by anything. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the number in support of the source change every time you comment on it? It was 3 when you last mentioned it on your talk page, and it was 2 when you first mentioned it in the RfC close. My issue with your close is how something that close is somehow a consensus which you then lean on to make your own suggestion, when the source that got literally 1 less comment in support of it is "no consensus". There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, and the close should reflect that. The close needs to reflect the discussion, that's my only issue here, because as it stands it's a suggestion, not a summation. There was no consensus for SMH, just as there was no consensus for anything else. - Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's 3 on the talk page because you were not including the person who supported both PinkNews and SMH at one point in your count, so to keep it consistent with you I also removed. However, It's 4 when you include that person, and 3 when you don't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I know this is annoying, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, but the whole thing was just a big No Consensus, and should have been closed that way. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yup, exactly. Overturn to no consensus per Black Kite.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, No consensus Even for this rather weakly written and sourced article page, the RfC was thinly participated with little valid reasoning and no agreement that could support the close. I also note that the closing editor has been fairly active doing non-admin closes and has gotten into trouble with them before. I see little policy-and-sourcing based evaluation of the !votes and too much of his own POV, either one of which will undermine his efforts as closer. I'd suggest he focus on other activities for a while. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn - the SMH piece is an opinion column, as pointed out by several participants, so it can't be used to support a statement that a BLP subject has ADHD, per WP:BLP policy. Closer missed this. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLP doesn't necessarily apply here since the subject of the article passed away last month; however, I did object to using the Sydney Morning Herald column in the RFC because it's a WP:RSEDITORIAL issue. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Musashi1600: Recently deceased people are also subject to BLP policy. ––FormalDude talk 21:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• My two cents: not a trainwreck (as mentioned, we've all seen bad closures, and this isn't one), but the RfC was closed too early, before consensus could be established—the RfC was only open for 2 weeks. I commented in the RfC, but I believe a consensus was inevitable if it were to have gone on a week or two more. SWinxy (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen Wouldn't reopening a RfC be a better solution? I think there is significant clash in the RfC, but perhaps more participation might lead to resolution. An RfC in which editors have made good faith argument shouldn't have their discussion short-circuited by one weak close. I hope the discussion in which participants already invested has a chance to more fully develop. BusterD (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn — I specifically object to the closure endorsing the Sydney Morning Herald column because it's clearly not a reliable source for any purpose on Wikipedia (BLP or otherwise) per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus; close was a WP:SUPERVOTE and not an accurate determination of the consensus. Link20XX (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen; IARGAC, if you aren't seeing consensus but you have an opinion, just go ahead and !vote. valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open. There isn't a clear consensus there and the RfC had run for a relatively short amount of time (13 days) relative to most RfCs (30+ days). No reason to close it early. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The Equalizer

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

---

There was an oppose consensus to move back on 10 February 2021 from the talk page. I see yesterday evening it got moved without any consensus by Steel1943. I am not good at moves, don't want to mess it up. Maybe someone can fix it back? Govvy (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, the sole oppose struck their vote a couple of days ago, which likely prompted the move today. Is there still an issue? Primefac (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, you appear to have missed the requested move discussion dated 11 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, strange,

1; Having another look, I seem to have missed the bot post which is at Talk:The Equalizer (1985 TV series). Had no real idea there was a move discussion as it was on a brand new page I didn't see, have on my watchlist.

2; Shame I didn't get a curtesy ping! Since I was on the last comment.

3; The move discussion didn't seem open that long for a move discussion! O well!! Govvy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The C of E Tban appeal

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

---

Good morning everyone. This is an appeal against my topic ban from WP:DYK participation. Having had 6 months to consider what happened and think about the effects of my actions, I do recognise the drama that I caused and the harm it can do to the project and others. I apologise for what I did in creating articles crafted around creating controversial DYK hooks, I recognise that is not the right way to edit on here now. I understand the collection of credits is not the primary reason for being here. With my time away, I have been working on some WP:ITN articles and collaborating with others. I have helpfully been guided by advice given by @Floquenbeam: and kept to the tban (despite some users asking me to cross the ban). I would like to be able to return to DYK to help build preps and also to help contribute.

In accordance with a suggestion made by @Boing! said Zebedee:, I promise that I will not nominate any smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks and I also promise that I will not ever edit, adjust or add anything into an article solely for the purpose of making a DYK hook. I give my word, I will adhere to what I have promised. I would like to ask the community for forgiveness and for the chance to prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#The C of E and DYK. —Cryptic 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a quick note that I got the ping, but likely won't be commenting on this. My only involvement was to read the clear consensus in the ANI thread Cryptic links above, and enact it. Apparently, I actually thought a lesser sanction would have worked, but I only know that because I read it in my closing summary, not because I remember coming to that decision. I have no special insight into this appeal, pro or con. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  One more note: When CofE refers to my advice, I made several comments between 13 and 21 Jan on their talk page, but to save people a little time, I'd say my "key" piece of advice was here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - You faithfully served the t-ban, sought advise during that time from administrators & so IMHO, the preventative measure is no longer required. PS - FWIW, you've never harmed me concerning the topic, in anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am inclined to support this request but I fear that the smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks is wording that may be too narrowly crafted and leaves the barn door wide open for other types of disruptive DYK editing. I supported the topic ban back in January. My concern is that this editor fancies themself as a provocateur who admitted The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia. I expect to see an overt repudiation of that disruptive attitude and a rock solid commitment to never get involved with controversial DYKs ever again, with an understanding that an indefinite block will be the result of any such trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think I can support this, with the pre-existing ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics, left in place. I share Cullen's fears a little, as The C of E has in the past had a tendency to take things very literally and fail to see beyond the words of a restriction and understand the core meaning behind it. But I can't really fault the commitment made here, and I hope I'm right in my understanding that it means there will be no more pushing of boundaries. This will, of course, be a last chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I mean exactly what Pawnkingthree says below - revert to the restrictions in place immediately before the current total DYK ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

• Very qualified Support with the caveat the pre-existing ban stays in place per Boing! above, and that there's absolutely no skirting round the edges per Cullen. Just ... stay well away from anything that could be construed as a problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• The only way I would support a return to DYK would be if all the September 2020 restrictions were left in place; ie. a ban from British/Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ, a ban from editing his own hooks when they are in a Prep era, and the ability of any independent reviewer to veto any of his proposed hooks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, The C of E has done good work on-Wiki and he is an expert on many things. There are many topics where he's largely been been problem-free. On the other hand, I cannot forget the memory of what he used to do and what got him into this position in the first place.

I would be willing to support him being given one more chance, provided that his existing DYK restrictions (i.e. the ones about preps or avoiding anything to do with LGBT/Religion/Irish politics/etc.) would remain in place. I would also suggest that he seek out a mentor to collaborate with him on every DYK nomination to help ensure that he doesn't accidentally fall afoul of his restrictions. In fact, while I don't know if there's consensus for this, I would also suggest that his restrictions be expanded to British politics in general as well as anything to do with British colonialism, as there have been concerns regarding his hooks and interests in those topics before. Finally, it should be made perfectly clear to The C of E that this his last chance and any violation of the things that got him here would almost certainly result in him being banned from DYK again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I want the chance to prove I have changed from that. And I think it would be a little unfair to remove the total ban but then start bringing in new restrictions beyond what was already in place beforehand. I cannot demonstrate the difference if I am not permitted to edit in certain areas that I were not banned from prior. The main reason for the initial ban was predominantly based on the provocative stuff, which I have apologised for and I recognise what the consensus seems to be building to. Why would I throw 6 months of personal development and my Wikipedia account away in asking for unbanning just for the chance at 1 last risque DYK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This is really just to make sure you won't blow your chance. Many here are willing to give you another chance but we may not all be confident that you have changed. Like you said, you have to prove it with your edits and actions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the existing "British or Irish politics" ban as already including British politics in general. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned from British politics in general because he's done some useful work there. It's politics regarding the Orange/Green divide in Ireland that has been the problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't be banned from British Politics DYK in general, but as I read it he already is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's counterproductive to ban him from British politics altogether as I think he's written a number of articles on British politics that are useful contributions and which otherwise would probably not have been written. It's the orange/green issue where the problem has been IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding here, sorry. When I speak of British politics in general, I mean in the context of DYK, and as opposed to only DYK for Orange/Green issues (as DYK is what this ban is all about). I don't mean to suggest extending any such ban beyond DYK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to Gatoclass and others: The C of E's actual topc ban is The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed., and comes from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270. So far as I know, that's still in place, and isn't anything that can be undone here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And that I know can only be undone by arbcom, not here. It's just the ban on DYK I am asking for to be lifted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified support - I thought the previous ban was overkill as the user's behaviour was already under control after the earlier ban, but agree with Boing!, Black Kite and others that the earlier ban on certain political topics, religion and LGBQT topics should remain. As it happens I am also inclined to disagree that the user need refrain from hooks containing profanity as these can be vetted by the community like any other, but he definitely needs to stop arm wrestling with other users over the choice and/or wording of his proposed hooks, in particular, editing or substitution of his own preferred hooks in prep. Struck as already dealt with in a previous remedy. But I would also like to see him banned from approving April Fool's hooks submitted by other users, because his judgement there has over a long period of time proven at least as flawed as his judgement of his own hooks. Struck as extraneous to this discussion, see below. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the thinking behind the total DYK ban was that the community can't be expected to keep crafting ever more finely-honed specific bans for individual editors. In the end it just has to come down to The C of E to get it right. So I'd oppose any further attempts at refinement, and just lift the total DYK ban - and it's up to The C of E to take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the April Fool's issue here, as it's probably not something the community as a whole need consider. It's probably an issue best left to the DYK community itself to deal with, so I might take it up there once this discussion is resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• • And if the community is kind enough to do so @Boing! said Zebedee:, I will endevour to ensure their faith in me is not misplaced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support with no restrictions. A second chance should not come with multiple caveats like some double secret probation. There are enough checks and balances in place at DYK so that no damage can come to the project. Hooks are often pulled and fussed with many times before they ever see the main page. Also, the participants in DYK will have a heightened awareness regarding the editor's contributions in DYK. We could use positive constructive contributions from The C of E. I came here after seeing a notice on the DYK talk page. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Bruxton, I'm not weighing in here on either side, but I'd suggest maybe it's worth considering whether the restrictions that were already in place might actually be helpful to CofE in knowing where the boundaries are. This is a person who very much wants to respect boundaries but has a difficult time finding them without clear statements on where those boundaries are. The restrictions that were already in place are ones that most people detect and generalize from fairly quickly for themselves. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at DYK there will be very limited patience for CofE not detecting boundaries, and I'd hate to see removing those clear boundary statements turn into something permanent. valereee (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The restrictions were put in place precisely because the checks and balances failed. There is a reason why The C of E was prohibited from editing his own hooks in prep, from proposing certain kinds of hooks, and why the hook veto practice was imposed. All of these were responses to his previous actions. I understand that you're relatively new to DYK and Wikipedia as a whole and was not here at the time those restrictions were imposed, but they existed for a reason. Now, if The C of E is allowed to return to DYK, having those earlier restrictions imposed will allow The C of E to avoid doing the things that led him into trouble while still giving him a chance to contribute productively to fields where he had no trouble. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose @Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: Thanks to both of you for the messages. I thought I might point out that I have about 58 successful DYK nominations and I learned my way around the place. My own hooks are regularly pulled and stuck - and discussed etc, but I never intend disruption. It appears this editor has intended to disrupt for several years. I was not aware of the 2020 arbcom discussion. And I only became aware of issues when the op proposed a DYK that I commented on back in January. So based on the years long disruption and on the comments by @David Eppstein: and Narutolovehinata5, I withdraw my support for lifting restrictions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton, sorry to ping you again, but could you clarify whether you're still supporting lifting the t-ban, which was actually what CofE is asking for? The various editing restrictions at DYK were already in place before the t-ban was placed; people here have brought those up as a secondary question, some saying they support lifting the t-ban as long as the restrictions are left in place. CofE wasn't actually even asking that those be lifted, as far as I can tell. Just the t-ban. valereee (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oppose. Lots of other areas of the project to contribute as BD2412 has stated Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The supposed apology and promise to do better does not address the much earlier and long-lasting problems that led to the earlier ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. My impression is that the broader problems arose as a way to lash out against that earlier ban. Unless it is addressed, we still have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Eppstein. Even if the ban is lifted, a total lift without added restrictions - along the lines of what Bruxton is proposing - is completely unacceptable. I don't understand why CofE is determined to get his restrictions lifted on DYK hooks, considering that he can be productive in other areas of Wikipedia and especially considering the extraordinary disruption he brought to DYK in the past.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think he's asking to have all the restrictions lifted, just the total ban but with previous restrictions still in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • That is correct @Boing! said Zebedee:. I will be asking for some further clarification on them if the total ban is lifted to avoid any misunderstandings. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose absent both the pre-ban restrictions and ensuring that the set of restrictions going forward clearly and unambiguously cover past problematic behaviors, including the warping of articles that was the proximate cause of his total DYK ban six months ago. After that ban, in the discussion on his talk page, The C of E pointed out that he doesn't pick up on subtle hints or implications and needs direct, clear clarification on what is allowable. I would go further, based on past experience at DYK: if someone tells him not to do something and his interpretation of a specific Wikipedia policy is that he can do it, he'll ignore that person and go with his own interpretation, even if it isn't just one person telling him no. That's why he had all the restrictions prior to his full DYK ban, and why they need to be in place and clearly defined if the ban is lifted: The C of E has great difficulty seeing why what he wants to do would be problematic, and hasn't been able to refrain from testing—and blowing through—the boundaries. I agree with Cullen328 that the C of E's initial offer/proposal is too narrowly crafted (why "solely", for example?), though it does cover areas not in the original restrictions that I think need to be there. Otherwise, we're setting up a situation ripe for failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm having the thought of if The C of E could have some kind of DYK mentor if he's allowed back into DYK. Like he would have a co-nominator for all of his DYK nominations, who would tell him if what he's doing is right or not. The co-nominator could also serve as an additional check to make sure whatever he writes (article and hook-wise) either doesn't fall under existing restrictions (i.e. no Irish nationalism, etc.) or doesn't try to skirt around them. Also, a co-nominator could ensure that thinks like his "cock" antics before do not happen again.

I think my biggest fear here is that we could see a repeat of the incidents that led to the "cock" article incident. The comments made above regarding boundaries is a good point and I fear that The C of E could return to his old ways where he pushed the boundaries of what he was allowed to work on. His comments above seem sincere and he does seem to be trying to atone for what he did in the past, but given what he's done before, I'm not sure if his apology here is enough. I'm not against the idea of his total DYK ban (as opposed to merely the other restrictions) being lifted, but I wouldn't support the ban being lifted outright without checks or assurances to make sure that what happened before would not happen again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: After reading this again (showing how the problem is DYK for him), the admitted problem with boundaries, and knowing that C of E could not get the message operating under a more limited restriction, already: trusting again seems a very big ask, and this is not a second chance, it is, at least, a third. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Respectfully oppose. Wikipedia is over 6.5 million articles and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more needing to be made. There is a tremendous amount to be done without raising the specter of DYK drama, even if it is just in the form of lingering bad experiences. I would wait at least another half a year. BD2412 T 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I thought the ban was heavy handed and overkill. --evrik ^(talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support So they were banned for promoting the words ""fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page" (per the ANI case) via DYK?! And yet Gropecunt Lane was TFA once upon a time. Seems a bit heavy-handed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Some things need to be clarified here:

Firstly, the hook that actually did get promoted never used the term "cock". It ended up being a normal hook.

Secondly, what got The C of E into trouble at the time wasn't necessarily the use of profanity itself, it was how he did it. The article repeatedly used the term "cock" instead of "rooster" even though the sources for the article largely used "rooster". Indeed, at one point the article even had the phrase "Dick's Cock" which was never used in any source. Although many DYK editors are disinclined to promote hooks featuring profanity, they're not outright prohibited, but there has to be a good reason to use them and more often than not hooks that would have featured them are written in such a way to make the profanity less explicit, largely citing WP:GRATUITOUS.

Thirdly, had it just been a one time thing, The C of E would have probably have been given at most an admonishment. However, he had a previous history of trying to push DYK hooks that featured subjects with profanity and profane names simply for the shock value, rather than the encyclopedic value. For example, he had a DYK nomination where the subjects were New Zealand geographic locations whose names had the N-word and tried to make a hook out of that. Needless to say, said nomination was ultimately rejected. Another time, he tried to promote a hook that called Muhammad a thief. Regardless of your opinions of Islam, such a hook was obviously a ticking time-bomb and needless to say, the article ultimately ran with another hook.

And finally, The C of E wasn't necessarily banned from DYK just for the profanity issue. It was due to a pattern of pushing the boundaries of his existing restrictions, and rightly or wrongly, the community felt that banning him from DYK altogether was more effective than further increasing his existing restrictions. The "cock" article was the last straw, but it wasn't the only thing that led to the DYK ban. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts If it was just the profanity thing ... but that wasnt the original problem - see the links here and my comment in this AE. That's why I've suggested above that the CofE goes nowhere near any of these topics. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't see/know about that. Yes, going nowhere near those topics would make sense. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Closer request - I would just like the closer to spell out continuing restrictions, as it seems a little unclear. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've been reading closely with an eye to possibly closing, and yes, several oppose !votes seem to specifically be using the idea of lifting the restrictions that were in place when the t-ban was placed as one of their/their primary reason for opposing. The ones I've noted, besides Bruxton whom I've already pinged above, are @WaltCip, @BlueMoonset, and @Alanscottwalker. An edit to clarify whether you're objecting to the lifting of the t-ban from DYK (rather than being opposed to lifting the earlier DYK restrictions) or are opposed to both/either would be helpful to the closer, as CofE's actual request here is only about the t-ban, not about lifting the other restrictions. ETA: FWIW, right now most 'support' !votes are specifying that the support is contingent upon the earlier restrictions not being lifted. valereee (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think another thing worth pointing out is that some editors above are not confident about lifting the DYK ban entirely because there's the fear that, even if the total ban is lifted but the original restrictions remain, he would return to his old ways of pushing boundaries. If the total DYK ban is to be lifted, there probably needs to be measures to ensure that said boundary pushing would or could not happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which restrictions? Perhaps list them now, so everyone is clear.

But I brought up the 2020 AN, not for the restrictions, but because the statements there by CofE and others indicate a root of the problem of warping articles, of not being able to exercise good editorial judgement, pushing for main page ethno-nationalism, racism, ridicule based on sexuality, etc., is involvement with DYK, itself. And that somehow CoE, did not get the message, leading to another draining AN, which are not cost free for anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

To quote the prior ANI, The C of E is banned "from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics", from "editing hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area", and that any DYK hook he proposes can be vetoed by any independent review, where said veto cannot be appealed. In addition, there are also his restrictions relating to Irish nationalism, but as those are ArbCom-imposed they could only be overturned by ArbCom and not here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think AE restrictions can be appealed at AN.

And at any rate, my earlier comment was not about the restrictions themselves, it was that they did not stop the disruption. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

To respond to valereee's ping, I oppose a simple return to the pre tban restrictions, which were insufficient; at a minimum, they should be retained and additional restrictions included, worded something like you proposed last time, The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content, along with something that states clearly that The C of E cannot skew what should be encyclopedic content to make hooks or articles unnecessarily or inappropriately provocative, as he did with changing virtually every source use of "rooster" to "cock", which ultimately led to his tban. (If he doesn't have the judgment to understand what's inappropriate and unencyclopedic, he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.) His restrictions already prevent him from persisting when a hook is vetoed by a reviewer, instead being required to propose something substantially different. Absent something sufficiently comprehensive and clearly proposed and approved, I remain opposed to the tban being lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since it's extremely unlikely C of E has changed either their views or personality in any substantial manner, I see no reason to lift restrictions that are doing their job perfectly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The point here is that the total ban from DYK was never necessary. The C of E had already been banned at DYK from all the topic areas where his behaviour had been problematic, namely, Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ issues. Those bans remain in place and there has been no proposal to lift them. He ended up getting a total ban from DYK for a hook with a double entendre on the word "cock" which he had submitted for April Fools Day - precisely the kind of thing that he and many other users have successfully submitted for the day in question on many previous occasions with little if any complaint from the wider community. He had, in short, every reason to think such a nomination was acceptable for the AFD special occasion, and I submit that it was manifestly unfair and a double standard for the community to suddenly turn around and impose a blanket ban for the very same kind of material the community has found acceptable on many previous occasions.

I have certainly had my own issues with The C of E over the years, indeed I doubt that anybody here has spent more time trying to get him to recognize the problematic nature of some of his nominations. But I also think the problems were well in hand after the first, limited ban, and that the blanket ban has probably achieved little else but discourage participation from an erstwhile prolific content creator. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? You think it is helpful here to repeat yout failed arguments and rejected position from last time? You want a renewed argument about the already instituted consensus on the ban, in which the community rejected each one of your points including your blinkered view of the underlying evidence and problems. Your already rejected argument can only convince that problems will get worse and worse if the ban is lifted, there will be more boundary testing, more bad editorial judgement, more skewing of articles, more attempts to disrupt the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My "failed arguments and rejected position from last time?" Sorry, but I did not even participate in the discussion "last time". And the fact that the hook in question was intended for April Fools got only one incidental mention in that discussion, with nobody pointing out that this kind of hook has long been par for the course for the AFD special occasion. The C of E was basically punished for something that he and other users have done many times before and that the community has found acceptable. The inconsistency in response is glaring, and must have been quite bewildering to him. Regardless of what one might think of the C of E and his contributions, users deserve better consideration than this. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You did make this failed argument last time. The consensus was that he created multiple points of disruption and not just in a hook, contrary to your claim. Most our systems only ever work when editors show good judgement, this editor, on multiple occasions and in multiple ways, demonstrated poor judgement and poor editing. If he is bewildered, it can only mean he is either not listening, or does not have the capability to listen -- which only raises the spectre of more disruption. If it is blame it on the system, it means he is incapable of working in that system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Alan, please show me where I "made this failed argument last time", because I did not find the latter ban discussion until after it had been closed, and have no memory of participating in previous AN/I discussions on the matter nor can I find any diffs. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I was going from a memory of seeing you write that same argument at the time, perhaps it was on his talk page or at DYKTalk. I will strike, and again apologies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass Whilst I think CoE should be given another chance, it has to be clear what the issue is. He wasn't banned from DYK for a single April Fool's joke [37], it was a continuing issue of a number of things, and he didn't "get the point" even after the tban (see Joe Roe's comment at this appeal, for example). Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you are glossing over the actual reason the community tbanned him: it wasn't putting "cock" in the hook, it was deliberately warping the nominated article with a great many gratuitous uses of "cock" when all the sources used "rooster", which was disruptive to the article and the encyclopedia. He was misusing DYK to get this highly problematic article on the main page, and he paid the consequences for his actions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, with respect, this is not a problem confined to the C of E, the fact is that we have had a number of contributors to the AFD special occasion over the years who erroneously think that AFDSO permits them to behave with a laxity toward factual accuracy and article content. Over the years I have had to struggle to impress this fact upon would-be AFDSO contributors repeatedly and it's been a very frustrating experience. The problem in my opinion lies not so much in the behaviour of particular users, but in the way AFDSO is run. Basically, the consensus model simply isn't adequate for the task, because there are not enough knowledgeable contributors participating there. What AFDSO probably needs is something like the directorate that FA used to have, where one or two experienced users or administrators have the power to veto hooks and enforce appropriate standards. Penalizing one particular user for the failings of the system is neither just or productive in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass I totally agreee about AFD, but the that particular DYK entry is neither here nor there, it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back - see my links above. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite Okay, but my point remains the same, which is that to suddenly turn around and slap a ban on somebody for doing the same things they've done without objection on many occasions previously is just plain inconsistent and hardly fair to the party concerned. Also, so far as I am aware, none of the said nominations made it to the main page unchanged, so no harm was done. So I maintain that the original ban - preferably with the modifications suggested by Floquenbeam - would have been more than sufficient, especially with increased oversight at DYK, which doubtless would now occur. Having said that, it's not going to bother me unduly if the community decides here to give him another six months in the cooler, indeed it would potentially reduce my future workload, but I still think the blanket ban was unnecessary as the issues were already under control. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of the pre-ban restrictions was to get him to NOT do what he has done in the past. To realize that there needs to be more self-control, more listening, better judgement, less provocation. The restrictions were certainly were not a license to skew article content, we have much more important policies than any DYK system that work to prevent that, and we always rely heavily on on any editor to do the right thing, always. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass At least one hook - a highly incendiary one because of the date it was posted - made it to the MP. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's what got him the original topic ban from The Troubles, and I've already said I concur with that ban and agree it should be retained. This discussion is about the later blanket ban over profanity and whether that should be lifted, and I maintain as stated above that that ban was neither justified nor necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is to the contrary, the ban was most definitely not over one thing, it was over a series of things, and it did not look like it was going to stop. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The ban basically was over three hooks proposed by the user that included profanity. I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but DYK has run many, many hooks containing profanity over the years, including a number from the C of E, that have passed by completely without controversy. So how is he supposed to have anticipated that this is suddenly going to be a bannable offence? Does it make sense that a particular action is perfectly fine one day and a bannable offence the next? No, it doesn't, and the ban that resulted is thereby unjustified. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No. You do not have to repeat it, because it is not true. The ban took account of the entire record of participation incidences. Also, skewing article content is much worse than writing any single word in any hook. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It was still on the basis of actions that he's made on multiple previous occasions without any concern shown by the community, in which case he could have had no expectation that they would suddenly attract sanctions. As for the "skewing" of article content, none of it was of any great significance and there is no indication of a deliberate intention to mislead. People are entitled to make a few mistakes, I come across them all the time at DYK, and not infrequently from some of the encyclopedia's leading contributors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Skewing of articles is always significant. And it's not a mistake when you skew an article over and over again, it is by design. He has attracted attention in the past for words and more, so there is nothing sudden, and if he did not expect expanded restrictions were and are always a possibility, it means he either will not, or is not capable of paying attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you've had your say, and I've had mine, and I think it's pretty clear at this point that we are unlikely to change each other's minds, so there isn't much point in continuing this. Others can read the above thread if they are so inclined and come to their own conclusions. In the meantime, thanks for the debate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Are you saying CoE is seriously skewing articles outside of DYK? I thought the DYK topic ban worked because they mostly only skewed articles when they wanted to advance some dumb DYK hook but if you're right maybe rather than accepting this appeal we should IMO be looking at a site ban. AFAIK no one has suggested this so far, which makes me wonder if I've either misunderstood what you're suggesting or you're wrong. To be clear, filling an article with cock when almost few sources use that word to advance some dumb DYK is not some minor thing. It's serious and any editor who doesn't recognise it as such needs to stay away from anything which will tempt them to do that. As I've said before, I don't buy the 'it was the communities fault' argument. If no one told the editor before that it's wrong, for good reason few of us GAF at least in terms of the editor. It's the editor's responsibility to recognise it as such even if no one told them or even seemed to allow it, it's still not our responsibility that the editor didn't recognise how atrocious their editing was. And an editor who has already had a topic ban should be extra cautious about nonsense. As for the wider issue, if editors are regularly doing that at DYK, we have a serious problem, CoE may be only a small part of that. But again, there's nothing in what you've said which would justify lifting the topic ban. Instead, what you seem to be suggesting is that we should keep the topic ban, but either seriously reform DYK or topic ban a lot more editors. I wasn't planning to !vote in this, but what you've said about how serious the problems are make me think I should since even by your own logic, we can't let CoE back on DYK until we've fixed it up. According to you, the area has serious problems which we need to fix since they're seriously fucking up articles and treating it like it's fine and CoE was one of the editors who did that very badly in the past so as sincere as they plans for reform may be, the problems with DYK are very likely to me they'll be drawn back in to it. I'd note that while we have have allowed main page TFA blurbs to be written in a potentially misleading way, it's always been well recognised that that stuff needs to stay out of the actual article. It's extremely unfortunate if DYK editor's don't understand there's a big difference between a questionable hook and seriously harming an article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying the C of E is "seriously skewing articles outside of DYK" and I don't know how you got that impression. As for substituting "cock" for "rooster" in a DYK AFDSO article, I'm afraid I must disagree that this constitutes a "serious" offence. "Cock" is actually a legitimate term for an adult male chicken, that just happens to also serve as a double entendre. And in my opinion, the C of E's excesses in that article represent no more than a surfeit of enthusiasm for the AFD special occasion, along with a misapprehension of the acceptable boundaries. But if you think that such a misapprehension disqualifies somebody from participation at DYK, it might interest you to know that some years ago, the main page FA slot itself featured an extremely cringeworthy attempt at humour on April Fools Day - an experiment thankfully not repeated thereafter. But what it does demonstrate is that anybody can make these kinds of misjudgements, even our most distinguished content creators. In my experience, the vast majority of people have very poor judgement when it comes to assessing their own attempts at humour. Perhaps that's why good gag writers are always at such a premium. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The editor has not violated their topic ban in the past six months and shows a genuine understanding that there are no chances beyond the one that they are asking for. Topic bans are meant to be narrowly tailored towards preventing disruption. If the previous restrictions remain in place (which The C of E seems to clearly agree to), and The C of E understands that the community wants to keep WP:GRATUITOUS content off of the main page and will hold the editor accountable if they try to put it on the main page, then I would see no reason why a blanket ban is justified; the ability for any single editor to veto any hook proposed by The C of E is more than enough to ensure that only unobjectionable hooks by The C of E will actually make it to the main page. The only way that a blanket ban could be justified over that would be if such a high proportion hooks by the C of E were gratuitously inappropriate that it would disrupt the DYK review process. I think that the editor understands not to be pushy in this manner anymore, and a final chance makes sense to me. If the user were to engage in repeated bad-faith hook creation over the next six months, I would expect the blanket ban to be returned. But, if good behavior were to continue at DYK for another six months, I would expect the community to gradually release restrictions as the user demonstrates that they no longer will act disruptively at DYK. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the dissembling and "I didn't hear that" and "it's my autism's fault" arguments from C of E leave me no confidence this is a good idea. As mentioned above by Black Kite, this wasn't just one ill-advised joke, it was years of bad behavior that I see no evidence the user has actually learned from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. I do believe that CoE is genuine in their comments above and they are aware that any attempts to take liberties with an unban will be met harshly. The worst-case scenario is that they propose an inappropriate DYK which will simply get rejected, so there's no real potential that an unban will cause damage. Of course, CoE should also be aware that this would be a bit of a "last chance" scenario; again, they should read WP:ROPE carefully. — Czello 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am inclined to support on a good faith basis, but I am concerned that a lifting of restrictions might act somewhat as a 'trap' leading to boundaries being run roughshod again, and therefore to a potentially painful reimposition of the restrictions. The total ban came after a series of escalating incidents, and there are valid concerns above that such incidents may happen again. It has been barely more than six months since the ban, and while I'm not going to oppose on that basis, it does suggest DYK has not quite been moved on from in the interim time. If the ban is lifted, I would agree previous restrictions should remain in place, and would suggest a slow and very cautious re-engagement with the DYK system. CMD (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support the TBAN removal for smutty, etc. (while leaving existing TBAN in place, since I think that is what is being discussed). Six months have passed and he hasn't had any incidents and took guidance when expected to. Isn't that a valid reason to remove the TBAN? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The C of E has shown themselves time and time again to be a troublemaker and and frankly an enormous embarassment to the encyclopedia, whos joy at making fun of serious topics like the troubles and rhodesia was franky repugnant. They were already granted a last chance, which ended up in them being topic banned for DYK's entirely, which was the correct outcome. I'd personally prefer that they were indeffed, but that's not going to go anywhere. Why waste time going through the long and labourious banning circus at ANI again when the C of E inevitably decides to abuse DYK's again. He's shown his true character time and time again, and it's not going to change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think your comment crosses the line into NPA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree @Sir Joseph:, I find those sort of comments are against NPA indeed. I haven't even met this editor to my knowledge. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - 4,000 edits in 2020, 4,000 edits in 2021, TBANed in Jan 2022, about 370 edits Feb-Jul. Normally, ROPE and all that, but this editor was previously TBANed in 2020 and then went and found a new way to be disruptive in 2021, which led to the DYK TBAN in Jan 2022. I don't think the 370 edits since then is enough to demonstrate whether or not they've changed; you don't get a TBAN lifted by taking a vacation for six months and then coming back professing to be a changed person. I'm reading this as "keeping my head down and then trying to get back at it", and the Nov 2021 appeal reads the same as this one. Sorry, I'm not convinced, given that this isn't a second chance, but at least a third (or fourth? I've lost track). Levivich (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per dubya nableezy - 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• All areas of Wikipedia are optional, but DYK is exceptionally optional. You can write 100 FAs, become the most active editor of all time, and spend a decade on ArbCom without ever once having to interact with DYK. It's a fun project to reward editors who create new content and show readers articles they might not have otherwise read. A TBAN from, say, BLP or American politics is an active inconvenience to an editor, because those are tough topics to avoid and limit their ability to create content. A TBAN from DYK has no such effect. The C of E is saying he could help DYK by working on preps, and I'm not seeing much discussion of that. If people do think he'd be helpful in that regard, then yes, maybe there's a benefit to the project in unbanning (perhaps a 6-month probation in which any admin can reïmpose). Otherwise, though, I don't see the point in removing a restriction that does not in any way impede someone's ability to create content.
  One closing note: Unless I'm misreading the last discussion, there's no restriction on other editors nominating the C of E's articles for DYK. If there's no consensus to unban, I could perhaps see the case for allowing the C of E to solicit nominations, in the form of a straightforward usertalk post like "I made Article X. I think it would make for a good DYK." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: See WP:BANEVASION. On the part of C of E, it would be blatant ban evasion. And scroll down to WP:PROXYING for whoever helps them do that. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: I'm saying we could make it an exception to the ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That exact idea was suggested by a couple of editors on C of E's talk page at the time, and the advice then was that it was a bad idea that could hurt his chances of getting the ban lifted. Of course we're six months down the line and it's possible if it was formally proposed here it might be something the community would support - if the C of E is interested in going forward with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I'd be OK with that. I had been asked a couple of times during the ban to do something like that, but I refused because I did not want to breach the ban in any way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose to this idea of posting for The C of E, @Tamzin:. For all intents and purposes, this would be a user-assisted ban evasion. I've seen it before when a disruptive user was prevented by ArbCom from posting on a given site. But ArbCom, in good faith, allowed that editor to post their suggested edits on their own user subpage. The result is that other editors made the suggested changes as indicated by the restricted editor, and the the only thing different was that it wasn't under the name of the restricted editor. Ban evasion, by any method or any other name, is ban evasion. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Rope was already given with the 2020 restrictions and ended with this year's ban. DYK already has a backlog of nominations - we don't need problematic nominations eating up reviewers' time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Maintain topic ban per Fuchs and Copic. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the restrictions. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Today's Featured Article

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

---

A little concerning to open Wikipedia today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster. Then only to find that the article is about a British Neo-Nazi... Should we really be including Neo-Nazis in the featured articles? 167.201.243.112 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The Germans don't shy away from teaching the Holocaust, neither should we shy away from past and present-day extremism. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, you wouldn't have opened "Wikipedia today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster" and then found out the article is about a British Neo-Nazi. There's no image like that on the main page. You would have seen that the article is about a British neo-Nazi and then clicked through to see the image once you knew what the article is about. I think the "principle of least astonishment" is followed. DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Open the Wikipedia app right now. You'll see it... It's the main picture for the article. The guy's face is cut off but the top half of the photo has everything described above. And the preview/summary right below "John Tyndall was a British fascist political activist. A leading member of various small neo-Nazi groups...." 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel there's a difference here. You are referring to teaching, having discourse, and ensuring information is available. By all means it must in order to have freedom of information. That is different from promotion. Promoting such views on the front page is hardly different from the conversation above about a user promoting profanity on the main page. In addition the featured articles are also sent via subscription to users who have signed up. Wikipedia is effectively disseminating those extremism views to a vast audience, both users who may be offended or hurt/threatened, and potentially an audience receptive of such content, opening the door for further spread of extremism 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice... y'all really don't get how things like this do impact diverse communities through the nation, especially in today's political and social climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A Wikpedia article, including a featured article, is not an endorsement. And what do you mean by "the nation"? Wikipedia caters for about 200 nations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We actually did run a Confederate flag image on a TFA last year - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2021, with no complaints. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that the app pulls the infobox image so yes, if you open the Wikipedia app, the first thing you see is John Tyndall standing in front of a Confederate flag. If you engage with Wikipedia through a desktop browser (as I expect most editors do) then you don't see the image without clicking through and the effect is probably lessened. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No reason why, if these articles ever get improved to the point of being FAs, that articles like Adolf Hitler, Swastika or Nazism shouldn't be able to be TFA. We cover the bad as well as the good, and show this on the main page. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Any one topic area that receives disproportionate coverage on the main page removes from the ability of other topic areas receiving coverage proportionate their significance. We have years worth of other areas deserving coverage. BD2412 T 05:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That's great in theory, but FAs are written by volunteers, and the coords can only choose from FAs for TFAs. The only way TFAs will get more diverse is if editors that want to work on those diverse subjects write the articles, get them to FA and someone nominates them for TFA. Some topics get disproportionate coverage because more editors want to work on those subjects and get their work to FA, so there are more FAs from those subjects. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Vide the baffling frequency of Final Fantasy instalments popping up as FA... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Block of Willbb234

Hello all. I have recently been on the receiving end of User:Doug Weller's wrath. I have been blocked from editing two pages and have been accused of attacking other editors in a personal manner, an accusation for which there are no grounds. Doug also doesn't like being called 'buddy' and apparently this was an issue even though he didn't tell me he didn't like it. Tell me Doug, how do I know that you don't like it if you don't tell me? Communication is key. I wish to be unblocked and I have used the unblock template thrice but to no avail! I also request that Doug retract his accusations that I have attacked other editors. I also believe that I have been treated unfairly by Doug and he has abused his administrative privileges to impose his wrath upon me. Please allow me to explain.

Firstly at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I was happily going about editing and improving the article ([38], [39] among others) when I suddenly awoke the science goblins from their cave. Next thing I know, Tim, Dave and Mr Gadling had logged onto their computers and began their onslaught. Tim was at the time an undisclosed paid editor with a fat COI, something for which he barely received a slap on the wrist from Doug. Mr Gadling threw around accusations and got rather angry and uncivil ([40]) and deleted the discussion as a result of his actions. Dave was alright I guess, he could have been better. Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page! Despite the fact that other editors were engaged heavily in some nasty edit warring, I am singled out! Can you believe it! Doug declined to elaborate on his reasoning (User talk:Willbb234/Archive 5#June 2022) and was very short with me.

Secondly, I then edit Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and I have a little edit war with Ian. We both do three reverts and so do not exceed WP:3RR and once again out of absolutely nowhere, Doug blocks me! I ask Doug on his talk page why he blocked just me but not Ian and I am ignored. Ian didn't even get a warning. If this isn't considered inappropriate behaviour by an admin then I don't really know what an admin can't do now. Ian's edits then get demolished by consensus proving that I am indeed correct, and Ian and Doug are wrong.

I am asking that Doug's actions are brought under the microscope as they are clearly inappropriate and that my blocks are reversed. That is all. Thanks everyone and happy editing :)Willbb234 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Make an unblock request on your user talk page and it will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Take care to read WP:GAB. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this on my talk page with the message “ Hi Doug. I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions. here's the discussion. thanks”. I’m in bed planning to read a bit and then go to sleep. See their talk page. Also User:Deepfriedokra may want to comment as they posted their about the unblock request. I don’t think Ian has been notified. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Malcolm, please see the final statement of my reasoning. This isn't just about an unblock. Thanks. Willbb234 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious if "Doug and his Lego" is the snide comment I think it is; is there another meaning I can't think of? If it is, then let's just close this as a time sink. Also, I realize that eventually a bot archived them, but aren't declined unblock requests supposed to be visible if you make a new unblock request? Reading recent edit summaries and comments, I'm inclined to leave both page blocks in place, and caution Willbb234 that they need to change their approach or blocks could start becoming sitewide. Keep in mind I know about this because I watchlist Doug's talk page, and am friendly with him, so I won't be doing any of what I'm suggesting myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm bemused by the title of this thread (and fairly unamused by "I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions"), so would appreciate being clued in here.. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"The Lego Group estimates that in five decades it has produced 400 billion Lego blocks". Doug is the Lego Group. Willbb234 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Riiiight... well that doesn't make any sense does it :) I've renamed the thread. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

He's not your buddy, pal. nableezy - 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not your pal, buddy. Willbb234 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I declined an unblock. When OP complained on my talk page, I sent them here. I'll let the folks here decide if the partial blocks can be lifted. I think OP is overly invested in the articles in question. There are about 6,000,000 other articles to edit. I don't think the partial blocks are anything onerous.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the vindictiveness, the seeming seeking of revenge noted by Doug in " I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions", inclines me to feel I was right to decline. It suggests a battleground mentality not compatible with this project. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with this comment. I believe Doug acted unfairly and used his administrative tools in a way in which they should not be used. Isn't it fair that I therefore believe that there should be consequences for his actions? Willbb234 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Now, what was I saying about inappropriate use of terms of familiarity? Ah, yes. It was OP's talk somewhere. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence or admission that Tim is paid for his contributions to Wikipedia? If there are none, you should strike that. I don't see much in Mr Gadling's comments that lead me to believe he is angry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline): Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. How do you think it would pan out if your employer saw a comment by you that was out of line with their business philosophy? The financial part of COI is extremely important and could very well be what drives a person to assume a particular position. I have no dog in this fight, and what matters most to me is making sure we are all on the same page relative to PAGs. My question now is whether or not that COI creates an issue for the editor who commented on that article? I will also add that I did not see an issue in the diffs provided but if those edits led to PAs against the editor, then we have a problem. How it is handled is up to our admins to decide, and the latter is why I want to make sure my thinking is on the same page as our trusted admins. Atsme 💬 📧 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to ask for a request for comment at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs because it was clear that we were going round in circles and going nowhere fast. However, I was unhappy about this edit summary. I would be happy to see Willbb234 unblocked, but only on condition that edit summaries and language like this are not used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234, you appear to have been blocked for edit warring as well as the use of intemperate language in edit summaries. Neither alone would be probably be enough for admin action but the two together is what has brought you to this point. I don't really see anything "unfair" in Doug's block and my suggestion is that you just fess up in an unblock notice, perhaps throw in a graceful apology to ianmacm, and see what happens. Complaints about "lego" blocks or leveling accusations of "wrath" are not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As I said on their talk page about an unblock, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. " Doug Weller talk 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234 admits edit warring and even if comments like "what a load of shit, buddy. Are you capable of reading WP:ONUS?" [41] aren't personal attacks they definitely aren't civil. Would you use that kind of language in, say, a workplace with a colleague you don't know well? Probably not, and I imagine that if you did sooner or later your manager or someone from HR would tell you to stop. This block could probably have be lifted if Willbb234 made it clear they understood what was wrong with their behaviour and that they wouldn't do it again, but instead they reacted by claiming the block was down to the "wrath" of the blocking admin and opening this thread in an apparent attempt to get some sort of revenge [42]. I suggest the OP withdraw this, wait a bit, and then file an unblock request dealing with the issues in their behaviour. Hut 8.5 12:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the edits in question aren't egregious, and largely come down to some copyediting, removing "grossly" from "grossly mischaracterized", and swapping "climate change denial" framing for "global warming sceptics". These are recurring sorts of minor POV edits in the climate space on Wikipedia. The word choice of "grossly" is a perfectly valid conversation to have, but rather than have a conversation (Willbb234 didn't use the talk page at all), he edit warred against three other people. Edit warring isn't allowed here. When called on it, he went on offense: Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves., followed by a couple pretty terrible unblock requests. Now we're here, and people are called science goblins, etc. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you stay away from 3RR. Probably could've been a fixed-length block rather than indefinite, but it's the sort of thing that should be very easy to get unblocked from. "My bad. Shouldn't have edit warred and gotten angry. I won't edit war further and will use the talk page to find consensus" yada yada... bam, unblocked. Over at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (oof, wish I hadn't looked at the content of the diffs), it doesn't seem like there's any POV issue -- it's mainly just edit warring again. You went past 3RR there. Being right isn't a good excuse. Doug would've also been justified blocking Ianmacm there, but i suspect what Doug saw was that you were engaged in edit wars on multiple articles, and even broke 3RR on that one. I'm surprised it wasn't a typical ~24h block at that point. Regardless, these are justified blocks. Just stop edit warring. Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be; just report them for edit warring and/or resolve it on the talk page. As above, this should be very easy to get lifted. Or, well, they should've been very easy. Now, with this thread and the lousy unblock requests, admins may want to see a more elaborate demonstration of clue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree 99.9%. Is that a first for us Rhododendrites? 😀 Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1. JBL (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• This all could have been avoided if Willbb234 had handled it the right way. Instead, what would have been a simple appeal has exposed a deeper behavioral problem and a combative attitude that is inherently incompatible with a collaborative project. Trying to play the victim, using condescending language towards others, and essentially tirading around WP is not the way to handle things. They have clearly been around long enough to know better. If they had bothered to take the appeal process seriously, they probably could have been unblocked by now. If they seriously do not see a problem with the way they flippantly approached the appeal process, then that's an indication that there is no recognition of what has gone wrong here and behavior is not likely to change. Past performance is indicative of future results. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been watching this post and it seems that Willbb234 has some issues with WP:CIV Seems to me the next action is to expand the block for the user until they can follow basic expectations of behavior on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my 2¢ worth. Make that $1.00 in consideration of today's inflation – which is really hurting folks on Bonaire, my little island paradise of inflate-the-price. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I endorse Doug's actions and I believe Willbb234 needs to revisit their compliance with policy. Andrevan@ 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for no reason, won't be donating again

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

---

Not that bothered but when I've been blocked for trying to fix a page where solid facts have been removed by another user (who should have been blocked lol), I not only no longer want to contribute any more, but I also have less trust in the information on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.235.206 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Since there are six million articles, care to narrow it down a bit for us? Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Innican Soufou

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

---

There's too much to cover. But the antics at Joe Biden's talkpage is the tip of the iceberg. Innican Soufou is clearly a WP:NOTHERE case. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Very curious to find out why legitimate discussion is such an issue for you. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusing two admins (Acroterion, Muboshgu) of harassment is not legitimate discussion. Neither is referring to the current US President as "the Resident" three times; [43], [44], [45]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a sustained bout of trolling and boundary-testing. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this user seems here to be POV pushing and has an axe to grind. Andrevan@ 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The AP discretionary sanctions are an option if any admin wants to use them for a discretionary block, as I made Innican Soufou aware of them about 2 hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also they just breached the 3RR limit at Talk:Joe Biden; [46], [47], [48], [49]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Individual is still continuing such antics at the Biden talkpage. My guess, it's a sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one week for BLP violations and edit-warring. GoodDay, please don't accuse editors of socking without evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• The editor got off easy. I was preparing to block them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I thought about it. Feel free to increase the block if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bbb23, thanks but I trust and respect your judgment, so let's see what happens in a week. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I hope you're correct about my assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have no idea what that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I hope the editor is not a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Talk page access revoked due to ongoing Biden "resident/former vice president" trolling which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

moving article title

Hello, I am getting difficulty in renaming(moving) "Theological College of the Holy Trinity" to "Holy Trinity University" because the college has already been upgraded (classified) as "University" two years ago by the country's ministry of education. here is the link to university's page https://www.htu.edu.et/ I am looking forward for your support/suggestion thank you Fasil H. (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fasil H., I think you're talking about Theological College of the Holy Trinity? There's already an article at Holy Trinity University so the article can't be moved there. It could be moved to Holy Trinity University (Ethiopia). Probably needs a disambiguation page. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Since both pages are completely unsourced it might be better to look at that first ... Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I use a techalt?

I have used both this account and my legitimate alternate account, NotReallySolak, to revert TheCurrencyGuy's currency-related changes which do not have consensus (a rollback precedent done by Kashmiri is here). I would like to get a go-ahead before I continue using NotReallySolak as a TECHALT. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This is of some significance since I have found around tens of these changes on a cursory glance. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself) an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I never used both account at the same time. I made two reverts on this account before switching to my alt. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think using an alt for a mass revert can be reasonable if that revert is non-controversial (I am admittedly biased, having made about 1,500 such edits), but agree with Schaz and Primefac that it should be avoided in the case of a bona fide content dispute. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think User:NotReallySolak (and User:'zin is short for Tamzin for that matter) fall into that grey area of "Not something you're going to get blocked for, but still kind of dubious" Why are those accounts needed? What legitimate purpose do they serve?

I've got an alternate account, RoySmith-Mobile. My legitimate reason for having it is I use it on my phone. If my phone gets stolen or lost, not being logged into it with my regular (admin) account reduces the security exposure. What's your legitimate reason? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Tamzin's alt, I can see the merit for that particular mass revert. Nothing controversial, just a large mopping up in user talk space. I'm not sure the same logic supports using an alt in mainspace for mass reverts unless community consensus supports the action and the alt is just serving as conduit(bot like) for the community. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith, I understand that my "legitimate reason"s might be weak, but:

1. TCG did not have the consensus before making their changes; ergo, my reverts only serve to restore the version with consensus.
2. As I said in the original comment, there's already precedent with rolling back TCG's changes.
3. I am not a rollbacker, but if I were one, then item 5 of ROLLBACKUSE would come to play.

Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Two separate notes:

1. A TCG RfC on Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck) has recently been SNOW closed with "no prejudice against opening a move request". The closer (HTGS) also left this message to TCG.
2. I see three main possibilities out of this thread:

1. I may continue using NotReallySolak to revert TCG. (see below - NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC))
2. I may revert TCG but I cannot use NotReallySolak for the purpose.
3. I must cease reverting TCG altogether.

I contend that my reverts themselves are legitimate (if Kashmiri was rolling TCG back, I should be able to revert without rolling back), but I have no preference as to the above possibilities. Either way, both this account and NotReallySolak will hold back from the reverts until there exists clear consensus for me to continue.

NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's three totally distinct issue here. One is whether the edits by TCG should be reverted. That's a content issue, which isn't going to be resolved at WP:AN.

The second is, assuming you do revert the edits, what's the best procedure. There's a few different ways to do that, such as manually reverting, using the undo link, or using the rollback tool. There's no huge difference between them, but rollback generally has the connotation of being used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism, and some people will object to using rollback for things that aren't strictly vandalism.

The last is which account to use. On that, I'll just repeat what I said above, but somewhat more emphatically. I suggest you use a single account for all of your edits. I don't see any legitimate reason to create a alternate account just to do rollbacks. You're being up-front about it, so there's no issue with it being considered socking, but I certainly wouldn't call it best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: My alternate account was created a year ago. Other than that, I agree with you, especially your suggestion that I "use a single account for all [my] edits". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

English language versions

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

---

This website is a schizophrenic mess. All I was doing was pointing out the sheer pigheadedness of imposing the American English form everywhere. I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions. There are just too many variables to attempt to "compromise", invariably this results in a mere popularity contest based on the fact that most editors are American. American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult. There is greater distinction between Commonwealth English and American English than between, say, Norwegian and Swedish or Bulgarian and Macedonian, and those examples all have their own Wikipedias. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult."

I've yet to encounter an American who was legitimately unable to understand "the colour green" and "fish and chips", nor a Commonwealth person unable to understand "the color blue" and "Burgers and fries".

But Hej älskling vs Hei kjaere... well you're literally speaking two different languages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You deliberately cherrypicked examples where they sound the same to the ear. I'm not going to argue because I don't care anymore. I'm just expressing my opinion that this site is a burning hot mess because of its refusal to even contemplate a split. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions.

Feel free to start your own fork then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to provided I can get some help in doing so, my tech skills are not the best. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm... sorry.... I'm just extremely frustrated right now. I've had a catastrophic burnout.

I'm just upset that Wikipedia tries to bridge the gap between two extremely distinct linguistic forms. While many of the basic words are shared by both, some aspects of the grammar and meaning of words and turns of phrase, even when there are no spelling differences, are nonsensical to the other. The exact use of words is often more important than the words themselves. This is at its most noticeable in vernacular forms one would not ordinarily write down, while the words may have the same spellings, because of dialectical distinctions phrases which make sense in one form of English may simply be gibberish or imply a very different meaning in another. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Two"? Do you know how many national varieties of English are there on Wikipedia? A few dozen at least. So, while you are at forking the English Wikipedia, please don't forget about an Australian English fork, a Kiwi English fork, a Hinglish fork, a Nigerian Pidgin fork, and so on. Please also make sure that all changes in any national variety article are immediately reflected in the corresponding articles in other varieties.

Apart from that, I wonder whether what national variety of English you'd assign to the word, organization. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Another tranche of mass-created geostubs

In random-articling I came across a group of some 500 Bangladeshi placename stubs all sourced to GEONAMES alone and created in bulk over several sessions by one editor. I understand there might be the possibility of getting these deleted en masse rather either PRODding or AfDing each one. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not much use without details...? Which ones, who? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Probably there will need to be consensus to delete en masse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we need significantly more information before we can determine what is the best course of action. Unless they meet a speedy deletion criterion there will need to be a consensus to mass delete (but given Mangoe is an experienced editor I presume they would have just tagged them for CSD if they did), and that will not arise without a clear indication both exactly what the issues are and what the scale of those issues is. The first thing to do is to look at a sample of them and determine whether they are mostly correct or not (GeoNames' accuracy is best described as variable) - if they are correct then we should probably look to better source them rather than delete them, especially if there is potentially useful information in there articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to test behaviour of Irish judges

In Irish news today ([50] [51]) it was noted that a research project at NUI Maynooth created 75 articles about Supreme Court of Ireland cases in order to test whether Irish judges were using Wikipedia to research case law when writing judgments.

It appears that most articles in Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases were created in this project, coordinated by User:AugusteBlanqui. Most of the involved users can be found at [52] but this is not a complete or exhaustive list.

I'm a little non-plussed about Wikipedia being used this way, but the articles seem mostly OK. Just running it by my fellow admins to see if there are any views. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if anyone has questions. We had feedback from Wikiproject Law and NPP. I am familiar with WP:NOTLAB and these articles first and foremost are a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Before this project there were only about six articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, could you post links to the discussions you say took place at Wikiproject Law and at NPP please? Could you also describe your relationship with the project - I'm not asking you to give anything away about your private identify, but was this work done as part of your job? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Wikiproject Law outreach: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23#Irish Supreme Court cases

NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Irish Supreme Court cases articles

This project was incidental to my job.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I guess I am not understanding what the issue is here? If we have decent articles due to the actions of this group, I don't see how their motivation is relevant. NOTLAB seems to refer to things like breaching experiments or test editing. It's also not our concern if Irish judges use Wikipedia for their research- it may be a concern to the people of Ireland, but not us. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. The research looked at the impact on citations in legal decisions of a case having a Wikipedia article. The articles we created help fill a lacuna on Wikipedia--the almost complete absence of Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is an odd posting. If you read the newspaper article properly, the issue is that Irish high court judges – and/or their clerks – are quoting/paraphrasing from Wikipedia articles on historical major Irish legal cases. If anything, the Wikipedia editors who created these articles are to be commended for the quality of their work. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any problems here. I spot-checked a few of the students' user pages. They all seem to be totally up-front about disclosing the relationship (example: Chocolate2206) so no issues there. I can't find any policy that this violates. On the contrary, it seems like it was a net positive to the encyclopedia by getting some articles written about subjects we should be covering. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So there was "AN-scope" in the sense that if there'd been a major dearth of disclosure then we'd have to decide to waive any concerns (or not) due to the net improvement of the encyclopedia. Especially since it could be a paid breach depending on how it was done. But Roy's noting that the relationships were noted. In which case we have better articles and no worries, the ideal combo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Here's the preprint on SSRN fwiw — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is group academic use of Wikipedia done correctly. Ambitious undergrad college professors trying to organize miniature classroom edit-a-thons should take notes from this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! We strove to put the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Many things motivate users to edit Wikipedia. This is one I’ve not heard before. However, there’s been no harm to the encyclopedia, we’ve got some quality articles from it and hopefully, we'll get more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is great, thank you to the researchers for doing this project. I'm particularly pleased to see the team's transparency in the approach and the quality of the articles (good enough to be plagiarized!). Stifle probably should have talked to the researchers before asking for opinions at AN. Finally I'll add: how Wikipedia law articles influence Irish judges is absolutely something we should care about at Wikipedia, it's not just something of concern to the people of Ireland. For the people of Ireland, this shows their judges are relying on Wikipedia. For the people of Wikipedia, it shows the same thing: just how much influence these articles have on the real world. That's why our policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are so important. What we write here can change the world. It's paramount we get it right. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Judges shouldn't be using Wikipedia this way, but it's outside of our realm. They should be using the existing law books, which take a little longer and is in the best interest of good law, but again, outside of our realm. As long as the articles are good articles, I don't see any problem with the creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Similar to WaltCip, I'm wondering how we can get all the other universities to run their own even larger versions of studies like this. I learned about this from Ori sending me a link to <https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior>. It looks like there's also some coverage at <https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727> too, for anyone interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon

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

---

First of all, being a volunteer or being a NPR here on Wikipedia, I give every day to Wikipedia. I tagged CSD on the page Madhav V. Nori because I think the page is not notable and had some strong thoughts that the user has some COI and that the user has operated or is operating multiple accounts previously, where the user accepted [53]and, as far as you can see, there is nothing bad faith here [54]. But without reading anything, this user User:Robert McClenon left a bad faith warning on my talk page where he mentioned I would be blocked. As he said, I did disruptive editing while making a "bad faith edit," which I never did. If you think it is bad faith to ask about the user's previous account, it is known as "bad faith." I don't have here to explain anything, but such tags discourage us while patrolling new pages. All I did was my job here as a volunteer.  DIVINE  18:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DIVINE per the giant notice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it's been a long time since I last complained to anyone here, so I forgot and was searching for the tag to notify the editor, but thanks to you, you did it.  DIVINE  19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

DIVINE, why haven't you waited for Robert to respond to your question on his talk page before opening this complaint? Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you think we should have to wait for anyone superior or have to take permission from anyone to lodge a complaint here?  DIVINE  19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that a matter that could be resolved with conversation between two editors should be resolved with conversation between two editors. But asking Robert to explain his actions then opening a complaint without waiting for an answer does not seem reasonable. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you should have made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before bringing something here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That was going to be my question, as well. Robert is all about the conflict resolution. They're someone I would actually expect discussion with to resolve issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DIVINE: WP:A7 does not deal with questions of notability. It states This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event[9] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[10] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This page does assert significance. Once a CSD tag is removed, your optios ar WP:PROD and WP:AfD, after performing a WP:BEFORE Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So do you think asking about the previous account [55] is disruptive?  DIVINE  19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There are ways to ask that would not have been disruptive. If you had assumed good faith and asked in a respectful way, this ANI report would be going very differently. But what you did was accuse them of being a liar in your first post. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And i never challenged the removal of CSD or anything here.  DIVINE  19:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Devine, on the talk page of the article you said "I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC. " to the person that created it. That is worth the warning that Robert McClenon gave you, and then some. The article was clearly not eligible for a speedy delete, and the tag was removed properly, and you were warned properly. Saying his warning was bad faith was your third (or more) mistake. Do you really want to go down the WP:AN road were we examine the behavior of not only Robert, but of you as well? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tagging CSD might have been my mistake, but giving warning is also my mistake here. What do you mean? Can't I ask about the previous account and how Robert tagged me as bad faith on the talk page and not on mainspace.  DIVINE  19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Look, I'm gonna be frank with you here. Your responses are indicating that you don't understand or know what you're talking about, which is a problem with an AFC and new page reviewer. I suggest you withdraw this complaint and learn from it, otherwise this seems pretty likely to boomerang. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi PRAXIDICAE, I appreciate it, but let me bear the consequences.  DIVINE  19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Calling a new user a liar when they may just not understand is clearly a WP:BITE issue. It was totally unnecessary, and worthy of a warning. You can ask about previous accounts, but you don't need to be an ass about it. If you don't understand this, you don't need to be patrolling new pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did I tell the new user liar? Can you please show me?  DIVINE  19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  here and I quote: I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC.

  Did you not make this statement? Or is your account compromised again? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nope, my account is not compromised again and i remember you as you're familiar. The part of the article showing that it was recently approved via AFC.  DIVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You literally just said a few edits ago you never called anyone a liar. So your response makes no sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Like your response makes no sense that you called me, they just before.  DIVINE  19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Well, to begin with, putting a CSD on this article was clearly wrong, because it has multiple claims of notability ("CSD#A7 applies to any article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"), even before your bad faith comments about the creator. You should have used AfD. While we're here, can you fix that signature, please? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really not thinking clearly to day, but I wonder if pulling AfC and NPR are not a good idea. Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You have my vote. Clearly, this is not the right person to judge CSD or deal with new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  They never should've been granted the rights to begin with given their rather lackluster history, so I'd strongly support that @Deepfriedokra. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Who are they?  DIVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Who is Deepfriedokra? An administrator, 16 years 4 months old, with 137,996 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Scottish, i'm asking MR/Mrs Praxi about Who are they? not about an administrator.  DIVINE  19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  See: singular they. Praxidicae is clearly referring to you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So there's no confusion for DIVINE, I was in fact referring to them when I said I'd support removal of perms. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I never heard that they are singular words. Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?  DIVINE  19:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you do not understand the basic concept of pronouns in the English language, you should not be editing, much less reviewing others work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I follow the language not your personal emotions. DIVINE (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Glad we agree that I'm a goddess and my emotions dictate the entire English language. I'll be sure to update all you peons at a later date on some more changes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Biting new users should be disqualifying for afc/NPP. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I never bite. I always help. How can you call him a new user when he has accepted that he has created multiple articles from his old account and he use to have a Wikipedia account previously?  DIVINE  19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes, the "not new" user with a whopping 31 edits to English Wikipedia on both accounts combined. Clearly they are an expert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did i even ask or question anything after he mentioned his account to him anyway. Can you please elaborate? [56]  DIVINE  19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...there is also a very obvious language barrier here. English fluency is probably necessary for reviewing articles. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Does the English Wikipedia also request IELTS score? Could you please ask them to modify the rules?  DIVINE  19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The rule is at WP:CIR. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note: it's hard to focus on the content of this thread because WP:BILLBOARD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to do the paperwork on this one, I mainly only act as a rouge admin or file paperwork at WP:AE. Could someone be so kind, perhaps Deepfriedokra? We all know where this is going. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Achieve consensus and unclick the NPR box. I believe primefac is emperox pf AfC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  notified of this thread via IRC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course he is; do you have any reservations about his abilities? You could ping him and ask him? DIVINE (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I've pulled NPR, if memory serves the revocation procedures for non-probationary AfC reviewers are more complicated for whatever reason. @Primefac may be able to weigh in there. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You think I'm really much more into rights? Can you leave a message on my talk page about why you revoked my rights? DIVINE (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  "as per discussion at WP:ANI" is all the message would say. Blablubbs may have pulled the trigger, but there is a community discussion and consensus that decided the fate of that bit. This discussion. No further explanation should be required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have consensus here for removal of both. Whether that is sufficient for AFC, I don't know, but a consensus clearly exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • That is my interpretation at the moment, so I have removed their AFCH access. Should this subthread or the overall thinking change, feel free to ping me and I'll re-add. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Not something we often have to deal with, so not covered in the admin manual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• @DIVINE:, on another note, your signature is clearly afoul WP:SIGAPP, as the text is way larger than what surrounds it. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps yes, since I am unaware of it; if so, thank you for your nice information; please allow me to alter it.  DIVINE  19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Divine for 31 hours for the personal attacks above: Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?, I follow the language not your personal emotions. No prejudice to further actions if those are deemed necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good for a first block. Will educate, Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not their first block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  😯 Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Since the user is doubting the consensus, I am voicing my support here for revocation their NPP and AFC user rights, per WP:CIR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Endorse block and removal of perms' Combativeness continues on talk. Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll support block and perms removal. There's evidently an attitude issue here that isn't conducive to dealing with new editors, nor is their engagement with experienced editors much better. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• As Primefac has removed DEVINE from WP:AFCH, their new page reviewer bit has been removed, and they are blocked, I think we are likely done, and someone can close with a note of the obvious consensus that has formed. I would, but I'm a bit too involved in the discussion. Although it hasn't been said in so many words, it is clear that there is a consensus that Robert McClenon acted appropriately and within normal behavioral expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. They ain't listening Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree Robert handled this well (so well that none of us even spent any time talking about it). Levivich (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Thank you, @Praxidicae, Deepfriedokra, and Dennis Brown: and others. I don't have anything to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Update: The block was extended another 72 hours and talk page access was revoked by Donald Albury.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Liam wigley again

User:Liam wigley, who was blocked by User:Bbb23, is back. They have responded to messages left on their talk page, not by apologising or explaining their behaviour, but with uncivil comments towards Bbb23. If this continues it might perhaps be best to revoke their talk page access. JIP | Talk 11:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that warrants removing talk page access. [57] and [58] are the only two posts. Asking Bbb23 to leave him alone is a (misguided) plea, but isn't a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• It now appears Liam wigley was a sockpuppet of User:Liam20102195. JIP | Talk 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, well that is a horse of a different feather. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information

I am concerned with @Epiphyllumlover's topic-specific and almost single-minded goal to add information to WP having to do with marriage equality bills amounting to polygamists getting married. These additions have been rejected by community consensus, including an RfC closed two days ago on the Respect for Marriage Act article. Epiphyllumlover's additions to the RFMA article included a section about polygamy, which the community agreed was UNDUE. The editor then added back the info to the lead, which I revered. They have been reverted on The Heritage Foundation's article just today by @Hipal, who said the info had "SOAP/POV problems" (with which I strongly agree). Other additions of polygamy information added to articles within the past few days include Mike Gallagher (American politician), Tony Perkins (politician), New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Wisconsin Family Council, etc. The list continues. WP should not be a soapbox for editors to add fringe views to multiple articles. Especially creating the perception that the Respect for Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, something that does not exist in the article or wording of the current bill whatsoever. While a long time WP editor, I don't hang out on the admin boards much and have never proposed a topic ban (at least that I can remember), but if this is the venue for it and is an appropriate discussion to have, I absolutely would propose and support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover on polygamy information related to politics. Any input appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Also, a quick note: No ownership issues about the RFMA article on my end. I was notified of the RFMA RfC on a noticeboard I follow. I have made exactly two edits on the article, both from this week, one of which was a minor copy edit. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC))

• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)

I hadn't looked into behavioral problems with the content being added to The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epiphyllumlover's revert to emphasize polygamy seems problematic [59].

Looking to other articles, I removed to Epiphyllumlover's addition to Tony Perkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There appear to be many more questionable edits. I think this should be taken to WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions Epiphyllumlover has been alerted multiple time on WP:ARBAB and WP:ARBAP2. The American politics sanctions certainly apply, with the remedy being WP:ACDS. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Thank you very much, I appreciate that! If the behavior continues I will open a discussion there. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover is currently notifying WikiProjects about this discussion in a way that seems to focus on content-related discussion rather than user behavior. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

I'm not sure which type of responses to this discussion here Epiphyllumlover expects from the WikiProject participants. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They've notified a number of individual editors as well as WikiProjects. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As this has now extended to specific users' talk pages ([69]), I have asked them to stop for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Asking sadly didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, I haven't reviewed all of the contributions. I am neutral on the matters but there was a clear community consensus that emerged in the RFC. I think this user has been civil and thoughtful enough that simply warning them to abide by the consensus that this is fringe/undue material might be a good first step. Andrevan@ 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Andrevan. Thank you for the thoughts. I want to AGF, but I also think there's a concerted effort to push a specific agenda, especially as they're topic banned from other issues (abortion). The discussion on the RFMA was thorough, and they were notified many times about community consensus and about fringe material, but have simply ignored those notifications. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Andrevan. We're not at a ban yet. If just pushing on the same subject repeatedly in a short space of time resulted in topic bans we would have orders of magnitude more topic bans in place. Same with leaping to topic bans just because an editor has restrictions in some other topic area. PS: Polyamory is not a "fringe view". The view that the specific piece of legislation under discussion would legalize polygamy apppears to be an incorrect one, though; it is at least not well-supported in sources. That's a good reason to exclude content about it from the article in question, but not a good reason to summarily remove someone from the topic area without longer-term and more serious problems in this topic area from that party.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: I have't read the previous comment) I am not expert in RfC legislation, if that even exists, but I find it strange that a RfC is final even in the presence of new sources? This is especially strange given that much of the opinions in the RfC were based on the sources presented at the time. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is not appropriate evasive of community consensus in my view. It should be taken to the talk page and discussed. It's not like any time has passed at all and things have significantly changed, either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I haven't read the previous comment) @Andrevan: but therefore one needs to know if Epiphyllumlover even failed to respect the RfC once. I don't think that he/she has, because most opinions in the RfC referred to sources and it seems that he/she used new sources. I cannot see how this is not relevant to this procedure that accuses Epiphyllumlover not to respect the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC led to a consensus that the material was undue and not sourced appropriately. Epiphyllumlover could start a discussion about the new sources, but they should not just start adding the material to more places immediately after the RFC concluded. Epiphyllumlover must take to heart what the RFC result means for what they are trying to add. Andrevan@ 22:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dominic Mayers three separate editors called the topic "grossly undue" weight with that exact wording. Not a single editor voted in favor of the information remaining. I think the discussion of new sources two days after a topic has been deemed undue weight by 100% of participating editors could be appropriate, if a discussion happens on the talk page. Adding information back seems intentionally evasive. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I did not read the last comment from Kbabeh) @Kbabej: We both gave our opinion. I don't have anything to add. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the editor has a prior topic ban in another politically/religiously charged area, we should expect them to exhibit caution and follow the indication from the RFC was was indeed pointing out that this information was undue given the sourcing, new sources means a new discussion, not to disregard the RFC and community consensus especially given the other prior topic ban, Andrevan@ 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not comment on that. I speak about what I know. I don't know about the previous history of Epiphyllumlover. 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed most of Epiphyllumlover's recent contributions re polygamy/Respect for Marriage Act. Is Epiphyllumlover repeating the behavior that resulted in the abortion topic ban? --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover, for the reasons stated above and the fact that other methods haven't worked to get them to abide by Wikipedia's policies and !votes. Moncrief (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please remove my access to AutoWikiBrowser

I have not used AWB in a while and I don't have immediate plans to use it for a particular task, so I don't see a compelling reason for me to maintain the pseudo-permission by being listed on the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting panel closure of an AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender)

As has historically been done for other highly contentious and large AfDs, I would like to request a panel closure of this one. It is at 176 kb and rising, with dozens of 'votes'. It would be quite helpful I feel.

It still has about another day to run, but I'm posting it now to give time to make the arrangements and for people to volunteer. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads, but I think this request should be listed at WP:CR. ––FormalDude talk 03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot that there was a section there for deletion discussions, but they all seem to be old ones, and I thought previous panel closures had been requested here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The older deletion closure requests at WP:CR were only requested recently and haven't been actioned yet by the volunteers at the board. We have handled panel closure requests at the page before, so this wouldn't be out of scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that this should probably be a panel closure, but this is the wrong venue. Make the request at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I listed it there too. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• In general we let contentious and active AfDs run longer than a week. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Recession

Urgh. Talk:Recession says it all — some additional, uninvolved (admin) eyes and watchlists would be appreciated — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Clocking out here after most of the middle watch and part of the morning watch (Eastern time). Notes for whoever takes over next (as I go to sleep, the rest of the East Coast wakes up; enjoy!): Some reverting and hatting; indeffed StarkGaryen (first month AE); a round of revdels over a nasty link; and I put related List of recessions in the United States under an AE consensus requirement for addition of new recessions. If people continue to try to add the same claim without sourcing at Recession § United States, it might be a good idea to add the same restriction there, or say more simply that it has to mirror whatever is at the full list. I commented at WP:RFPP discouraging protection of the talkpage, but intentionally didn't decline; would rather that be someone else's call. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Don't be surprised if you have to use full protection for a week (with a note that you will lift if there is clear consensus on the talk page), which tends to piss people off, but forces them to work together. Not saying it is there yet, but sometimes it takes a big hammer instead of a lot of little hammers. For the record, I'm not a fan of "consensus required" on most articles like this because it ends up causing more AE/ANI/AN reports than it solves problems. Not always, but it can. Some will get very petty about it and keep filing over any addition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Please also consider applying American Politics DS and its talk page header. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that. I'm 50/50 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Cribbins

I've just tried to revdel the copyvio versions of the article, only to get a message that they are revdel'd, but comparing article revisions shows that they aren't. Not my area of expertise, so if an admin more familiar with this can take a look, Bernard Cribbins can appear as a RD on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)