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. 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	29	0	29
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	22	0	22
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	121	0	121
AfD	0	0	9	0	9

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 118 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 14 requests for RD1 redaction
• 115 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 30 requested closures
• 117 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 20 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7669 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/AA Daniel Case List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees Uttar Pradesh 2024-05-04 04:45 indefinite edit,move raise to indef ECP per request at RFPP and review of protection history Daniel Case StoneToss 2024-05-04 04:12 2024-08-04 04:12 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Palestinian key 2024-05-04 04:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of national symbols of Palestine 2024-05-04 04:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Disinvestment from Israel 2024-05-04 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-05-03 18:04 2024-05-12 05:38 edit,move raised to ECP as one disruptive user is autoconfirmed Daniel Case Shakespeare authorship question 2024-05-03 14:22 indefinite edit Article name was changed without consensus SouthernNights Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) 2024-05-03 02:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ze'ev Jabotinsky 2024-05-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Yamla Khwaja Naksh 2024-05-02 19:21 2024-05-09 19:21 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Colombia–Israel relations 2024-05-02 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R animal with possibilities 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2524 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Malay name 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Tiger Reth 2024-05-02 14:17 2025-05-02 14:17 create Repeatedly recreated GB fan Palestinian self-determination 2024-05-02 11:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in US higher education 2024-05-02 09:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in Columbia University 2024-05-02 09:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Somaliland 2024-05-02 05:29 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; going back to ECP and will log at CTOPS Daniel Case Battle of Ocheretyne 2024-05-02 04:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 University of California, Los Angeles pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-02 04:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:MC Stan (rapper) 2024-05-01 17:40 2024-11-01 17:40 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Lisa Fithian 2024-05-01 16:48 2024-05-15 16:48 edit,move Dweller Brizyy (Singer) 2024-05-01 14:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Randykitty 2023 in Israel 2024-05-01 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Cliff Cash 2024-05-01 11:14 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie

Dicklyon temporarily blocked for incivility

Yesterday, I blocked Dicklyon for 72 hours for a second-offense personal attack at RMTR. This has sparked quite a bit of discussion at my talk page as well as his. A couple of admins I trust have asked me to bring this here, and if editors feel that it is best for Dicklyon and the project to shorten his block to time served, I'd have no issue with that :) Courtesy pings to @Chris troutman, Tony1, SMcCandlish, Cinderella157, Amakuru, SportingFlyer, GoodDay, BeanieFan11, Primergrey, The Wordsmith, Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, Lepricavark, Bishonen, and The Kip. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block I’m on my phone so I can’t quite type up as long a response as I’d like, but to put it semi-succinctly - Dicklyon has been blocked four times already in 2024 (and we’re not even two months in) relating to PAs, edit warring, and similar in the MOS:CAPS area that merited this block; even if the PA itself was comparatively minor, it’s become a constant issue with him, and this PA was as some would say, the straw that broke the camel’s back. These are the only way of clearly telling him to cool his behavior in the area, and honestly the fact this is a recurring problem could be extended to argue the block should, if anything, be lengthened, not shortened. That’s not what’s being debated here, however, so to conclude I don’t see any reason why a mere three-day block is unjustified or unfair, especially when the PA that originally earned it was in response to civil opposition to an edit he, with his prior editing history, was almost certainly aware would be controversial. None of this even considers his specifically adversarial treatment of GoodDay before this PA, and in addition, the block will probably be over before this discussion has any kind of a consensus anyways. The Kip 01:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  As noted in user talk already, trying to use the happening of the questionable block as a justification for why the block was not questionable is circular reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that A. The block wasn’t questionable, and B. Without it, there’s still three blocks in two months. That’s not circular reasoning. The Kip 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's more circularity. Many here are in fact questioning the block, so by definition it is questionable. The premise that you are advancing is that it shouldn't be questioned, yet you are attempting to use the idea that it shouldn't be questioned as proof of the proposition that it shouldn't be questioned. That's the very definition of circular reasoning; see the article for details. Yes, there are other blocks; that has nothing at all to do with whether this one was justified. If I had a criminal record, that doesn't mean that if I get hauled into court tomorrow and charged with murder (with flimsy evidence at that) that I should be considered guilty by default. It's a form of faulty generalization (a.k.a. inductive fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe it's questionable, but for everyone here's sake I won't expand on why exactly I believe that.

  Anyhow, it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't abide by criminal law, then. Simply put, when you have a history of block-worthy behavior your leash gets shorter every time, and with his recent block log Dicklyon's leash is dangerously close to up, hence why a comparatively minor comment merited this. The bar doesn't reset every time a block expires; otherwise we'd have plenty of far worse editors running around here getting temp-blocked for toeing the lines of behavior, but never quite going far enough to merit an indef (which Dicklyon did once receive, by the way). The Kip 06:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Terrible analogy; a 72-hour block on editing Wikipedia is not a murder sentence. And, at least in the nations in which I have lived, recidivism is taken into account, not in charging, nor in establishing guilt, but certainly at sentencing. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, way to utterly miss the point. Let's invert the analogy and see if you get it this time: If I have multiple convictions for manslaughter and get out on parole, if I end up in court again, this time accused of littering, my former transgressions don't make me automatically guilty of that one or even more likely to be guilty of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I got the point the first time; I just think it's a poor one. Recidivism is commonly considered in sentencing. In the circumstances being discussed here, I see no evidence that recidivism was considered in determining guilt; I do see that it was considered in determining what sanctions should be applied - i.e. in sentencing. The analogy does not reflect the substance of the matter analogised. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  We've even written the concept of considering recidivism into the WP:Blocking policy, Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Still not getting it. "If problems recur" does not magically mean a single admin's perception is correct that the problem has recurred. It does not magically erase the fact that an accusation (e.g. of engaging in a personal attack) has to be sound and demonstrable. It doesn't not magically indicate that recidivism is demonstrated. How on earth are could anyone have difficulty absorbing this? Roughtly half the respondents here say this was not a personal attack and/or that a block was not warranted; and of those who say the opposite, the majority are partisans in the recent RfC and review thereof in which they did not get the result they want. There is clearly not an reasoned community consensus that DL engaged in a personal attack and was properly blocked, and you just repeating that you agree with the block over and over again for subjective and circular and policy-misreading reasons does nothing to change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  This diff, referenced by the blocking admin in the initial post above, clearly shows the editor focusing on contributor, not content (cf. WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor. WP:FOC Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. WP:ASPERSION a situation where an editor accuses another of misbehavior without evidence NOTE: WP:ASPERSION also includes Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack. - a case, much like workplace harassment, where a pattern of behaviour is taken into account in determining guilt.)

  The comment in that diff is demonstrably in breach of those aspects of those policies.

  Now, one might consider that it is a relatively minor breach; and one which, for someone with a clean slate, would normally be met with a warning at most. And I would agree.

  But, that is not the circumstances in which we find ourselves. This is explicitly referenced by the blocking admin in the block log: Normally, it might land you a warning, but you were recently blocked for another personal attack against the same editor. The previous block referenced was imposed on January 22, with a duration of 48 hours and was for this comment, which is clearly beyond acceptable.

  Two comments, both focused on contributor, not on content; both focused on the same contributor; with a block for the first interleaved between. Recidivismus erat demonstratum.

  I note that partisans in the recent RfC and review thereof does not only include those Endorsing the block, but also at least one of the more vocal Overturners. Thankfully, I am not one of those partisans - this page contains no Rotary Engines - and accept in good faith that no implication of bias or guilt by association was intended.

  I might personally have been inclined to issue a final, final, final warning for the second comment. I might personally have preferred the block to have been of a slightly shorter duration (24-48 hours). But I do not believe that the block imposed is outside the discretion of the blocking admin.

  Arguments which rely on the proportion of respondents in this discussion are an argumentum ad populum. Arguments which refer to the presence or absence of reasoned community consensus, which in the potential of being formed by this very discussion are equally unsound. It is, as yet, the cat of a consensus; and I am free, here, to disagree.

  Simply asserting that someone "doesn't get it" does not make it so. Simply asserting "policy misreading" does not make it so. Simply asserting that an argument is circular does not make it so - though a reference to four blocks is, in part circular; a reference to three previous blocks is not.

  The evidence, of the personalised comment and of the pattern of behaviour, is in the diffs. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  This may be an appropriate analysis except that it takes the statement, GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves, out of the fuller context of what was said: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves. The first sentence is a rationale for the conclusion stated in the second; thereby taking it out of the ambit of a personal attack. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  That seems a far more reasonable objection than the analogy proposed above; but, for mine, still falls short. If we are discussing context, then: The first "underlying issues" sentence is an appropriate comment in the context - it directly addresses the request for a move to be reverted, and makes a substantive argument as to why it should not be. The second sentence does not. Even in context, it is ad hominem.

  In reviewing the "obstructionist" comment, did the blocking administrator consider it out of the fuller context of the whole of the edit, or did they consider it in context and still find it wanting? Did they find that the context does not justify commenting on contributor in this instance?

  Then, for either of those cases, is this within reasonable admin discretion? Answers to this question may vary among respondents here. My own view is clear. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  The post could have been left at the first sentence. Nonetheless, it substantiates the allegation of conduct made in the second. The policy is quite clear also. A evidenced allegation of conduct is not a personal attack. I do not direct the following at you, but policy is quite clear: taking the second sentence out of the fuller context is uncivil to the point of a personal attack when it is being used to justify a sanction. Perhaps one appropriate outcome from this AN discussion is that all three involved parties could have acted differently. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wrote out a set of sentence by sentence replies; but think we are perhaps at the point of already diminished returns.

  In summary:

  Disagree with the absoluteness of some of these statements; noting the list at WP:NPA is not exhaustive; and that not only the listed "personal attacks" (term of art) can lead to sanctions. Add: I guess what I mean here is that evidence is necessary, but not sufficient.

  Genuinely appreciate the non-directed nature of one particular comment; but, from the blocking admin's comments on their own and the editor's Talk pages, am not convinced that they did take the one sentence out of the fuller context of the edit. Speaking for myself, I certainly did not. Before opining here, I considered that comment in context and concluded that the context - the full edit text, but also the forum in which the edit was made, and the utility of the comment to that forum - did not sufficiently mitigate.

  Agree with the final sentence. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the example crimes chosen are hyperbolic such as to detract from the argument. There is no murder charge here, nor does anyone go to court for littering. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you get a littering ticket and challenge in, then yes you will in fact go to court. Totally missing the point anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block Last month, Dicklyon referred to GoodDay as a 'thorn in my side'. That wasn't even the worst thing he said about GoodDay in that discussion, but it does show that he needs to rethink his attitude toward that particular editor. I don't believe that an early unblock would encourage that outcome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That edit, and the one preceding it, were egregious personal attacks. But Dicklyon has already served a block for them. This new block needs to be justified on the basis of subsequent conduct. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  This block is justified on the basis of subsequent conduct. My point is that lifting this block would not help to address the underlying problem of Dicklyon's repeated hostility toward a specific editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't overturn, per The Kip, who mostly sums up my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block per the rationale provided by Amakuru at the editor's Talk page. - Rotary Engine ^talk 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I was one of those on the user talk page. What Dicklyon said did not, to my mind, rise to the level of a block. I understand there was a larger context of past blocks and other editing, but that should have resulted in a thread here, not a unilateral block for claiming someone was "being obstructionist." Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block I am unimpressed by multiple editors on both talk pages and their arguments. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are bright line rules to follow, not an exhaustive set of "If you don't explicitly say Y, you'll avoid sanctions" style training. Frequently incivil users should be held to the same or higher standards, not be excused from our usual policies based on which content dispute they're working at. Soni (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the block. GoodDay, if you're going to object to a page move, can you please give a reason for the objection? Not just that you see it as controversial, but some substantive reason you oppose it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  GoodDay's response to this (from my talk page) is telling:

  Hello. As you've requested. In 2023 an RM was held (which I think I took part in) concerning whether or not to move NHL Conference Finals to lower-case. The result was -no consensus- to move. It would be advisable to hold another RM there, if one believes a consensus to move, is now attainable.

  This is precisely what I did not ask for. I am frustrated. I think I'm many levels short of accusing GD of being obstructionist in the wrong venue, but it's not so odd to me that someone did reach that level of frustration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not GoodDay, but the issue/substantive reason for opposing has been that the moves were done without any formation of consensus, or any attempt to do so. These moves are known to be controversial (see WP:ARBATC and prior contentious RMs/RfCs in the area, many of which Dicklyon had either started or participated in), and as a result RMs or RfCs should’ve been opened regarding the hockey pages if he felt so strongly about downcasing the titles; however, he instead did so unilaterally, citing an entirely unrelated RM/RfC on NBA pages as justification to do so. The Kip 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you think someone's move rationale is wrong, that would be a good reason to undo the move, and it would be helpful to say so. If you anticipate controversy, you can bring the move up for discussion at many available venues. If you don't personally object to a move, you shoudn't revert it. It would be a detriment to the project if people did otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't personally object to a move, you shoudn't revert it.

  The problem is that we have procedures in place; this to a degree advocates for WP:IAR in a space where IAR is a dangerous precedent to set. Whether or not I or others agree or disagree with Dicklyon’s edits, there should at least be agreement that the proper channels should be gone through rather than unilaterally imposing one’s own view of the topic. The Kip 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't frame the problem that way, and even if I did, I wouldn't suggest reversion without substantive objection as a remedy to that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I frame the problem as Dicklyon unilaterally moving a page for which there was a recent 'no consensus' RM. That is a substantive reason to undo the move. I see no reason for GoodDay to face criticism for taking this to RMTR. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm using "substantive" to mean "dealing with the substance, rather than the procedure, of the matter", but whatever. Assume you're right about that one. How about this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  YMMV, but I'm not concerned about the distinction between dealing with the substance vs. dealing with the procedure. It has been well established that these page moves are controversial, so I believe they need to go through RM. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block. If further issues with Dicklyon arise, the next step should be arbitration, IMHO, since the community failed to resolve any of Dicklyon's BATTLEGROUND editing in the MOS:CAPS area in the last ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon_and_semi-automated_edits), which was closed five months ago. Some1 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse regardless of whether Dicklyon is on the right side in the current kerfuffle, it doesn't excuse the conduct. I have not participated therein or in the close review, so fully neutral. Should be blocked longer next time because it's clear from his history that if he believes he's correct he will do whatever he wants to get the outcome he prefers. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I'm more than a little concerned that this is Dicklyon's second personal attack on GoodDay, the first happening on 22 January, and his forth block since the start of the year. With all due respect to Chris troutman, if Dickylon's comment had happened in isolation, I'd agree that it maybe wouldn't rise to the level of a block and instead it would have been warning worthy. But Dickylon was blocked a month ago for a personal attack against the same editor. Making a second personal attack in such a short timeframe is not a good look behaviourally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Chris Troutman. That's a very mild description of behavior that does not rise to a blockable offense. If the block is for a pattern of incivility, then that should be made clear, but in terms of an inciting incident, this is pretty mild. This is an over-sensitive response. Grandpallama (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block The insinuations about the motives of other editors is just one sign of a real problem. The comment was made as part of an RMTR after Dicklyon unilaterally moved the page to lowercase. His move occurred one year (to the exact day) after he had previously unilaterally moved it, was reverted at RMTR, and opened an RM on the same page, which was closed as no consensus with the majority being against the move. Last year's RM was still the most recent thread on the article talkpage. I fundamentally do not believe Dicklyon's excuse that he had "forgotten"[1] the previous discussion, exactly one year ago. If true, it would mean that he didn't even glance at the talkpage before moving. I also don't buy that he assumed a discussion about a different page for a completely different sport meant this this move would be uncontroversial (especially when I blocked him for that exact same thing 3 weeks ago). The persistent incivility is just icing on the cake. What's worst is that he's probably right about the actual capitalization, but his conduct shows that he can't work productively with others in this area. If this continues, it may be time to consider a topic ban from page moves and/or article title/capitalization discussions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, with respect to good User:Chris troutman, given the context of User:Dicklyon's frequent and sustained misbehaviors during historic anti-capital-ism crusades (and blocks therefrom), the second-offense personal attack at RMTR counts IMHO as an egregious taunting attack. Kudos to theleek to seeing something burning and stomping it out. I believe leek has demonstrated appropriate respect to Dicklyon throughout. As an aside, I have found over time that Dicklyon is a quite obstinate fellow and often careless of what others think. Most of the time, IMHO, Dicklyon has found himself on the right side of wiki-history. I have grown to respect him enormously and be thankful for his many micro-focussed contributions. I believe his agency (and stridency) represent an extreme example of WP:BOLD. That's why his frustrating and frequent violations of our social norms are so troubling. I have seen great editors walk off the pedia because of Dicklyon's relentless misbehavior (before their previous indefinite community ban). This is inexcusable behavior and it has been stopped. We'll soon be at longer term sanctions again, sadly. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Block If this were a first offense, I'd be inclined to cut them some slack and let it go with a warning. But they have a rather long history of problematic editing, mostly involving edit warring but personal attacks as well. Their block log is frankly disheartening for an experienced editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but only in the context of working to progress on an overall issue. IMO the individual issue alone was not enough for a block. Dicklyon is an immensely valuable contributor. Folks with that many edits can fall into a pattern getting high-handed, overly blunt/nasty, too impatient and other things. This can be a part of an effort of fixing any such issues and to keep this valuable editor on a nice course. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the 72 hour block. But for me the phrase "beyond the pale" means something like "worst possible thing they could have said/done". I can think of worse things to call someone than an "obstructionist". So I was a bit surprised about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I have seen "beyond the pale" comments many times on Wikipedia, and this certainly isn't one of them. Galobtter (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1, as that stood out to me also. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Plus people really, really need to stop using that phrase. See Pale of Settlement and the Pale for the origin of the term, which is bound up in centuries of ethno-national trauma for at least two large groups of people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Pales are fences or boundaries. The OED defines the term as:

  beyond the pale (of): outside or beyond the bounds (of). beyond the pale: outside the limits of acceptable behaviour; unacceptable or improper.

  Which is exactly what the discussion here is setting out to establish. On the origin of the term it says:

  The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale (see sense I.4b) or the Pale of Settlement in Russia (see sense I.4c), is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting; will look into it. Even if the geographical matters end up being a folk etymology, the perception is common, so the offense potential remains real.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn; while Dicklyon has indeed ruffled a lot of feathers, and could probably use some cooling off, describing another editor's behavior as "obstructionist" is not a personal attack. It's a critique of one's editing and can often be apt. Seems like this block was more of a lifetime achievement award. Sigh. If Dicklyon cracks ten blocks in 2024, I say we all chip in and buy him tickets to the NFL Draft[sic] in 2025! As the zoomers would say, "no cap"! Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. DL's comment in question was clearly not actually a personal attack, but a comment on behavior/action. It did not need diffs because the action was opening an unconstructive RMTR request to obstruct moves the basis for which was already discussed and sourced in detail, and DL's comment was directly in response to that request; i.e. there is no point diffing the post you are replying to, and obstruction of a move is self-evidently obstruction, so there is no "accusation" to "prove". What DL could have done better is maybe not use an "-ist" word which can often sound more combative than intended (unless a uniformly positive or neutral term like "encyclopedist" :-); but this is not TonePolicePedia. Could have also linked to the previous discussions of sourcing showing that this sort of phrase is not "capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources". That said, DL now provides diffs of related behavior at his talk page, and they are even more indicative that GoodDay was being obstructive, having earlier engaged in related move reverts without any substantive rationale, only the bureaucratic basis they they weren't run through the full RM process. RM is not required except when a move is likely to be controversial, but there is no controversy if the matter has already been aired out. The discussion at the related wikiproject page shows various participants there in support of the moves, and no substantive objection, just repetition of a desire to invoke RM process for its own sake. We have WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy for a reason. Neverthless, I'm pretty sure that DL gets, now, that any moves pertaining to sports leagues and events will be better done via full RM process, due to tempers running hot lately in this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, the comment, while inappropriate, was not so uncivil it deserved a block, and I think any compounding factors from previous blocks should be weighed against the high levels of tension in the topic area. Mach61 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. Lest anyone think I'm coming here from a generic sympathy with Dicklyon, I was the last-but-one admin to block him, for what I thought was an egregious personal attack. This does not rise to the level of a block for me. There is a real danger in blocking an editor with an already lengthy block log over a minor offence that would have been allowed to slide coming from someone else, in that we can create a self-fulfilling prophecy about said editor's bad behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block Dicklyon's WP:FANATIC-like behaviour isn't helping in capitalization-related issues. And he seems to have learned nothing about civilly interacting with others from his ANI thread from last year - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon_and_semi-automated_edits. Also, his reading of MOS:AT appears to be that no capitals are needed in article titles at all, which is just grossly untrue. Perhaps it is time to discuss an editing restriction for Dicklyon in the area of capitalization issues, so he can contribute to Wikipedia without getting caught up in capitalization issues that end just end up in heated discussions and uncivil attacks of other Wikipedians.Canuck^{89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page} 04:41, February 27, 2024 (UTC)
  • "no capitals are needed in article titles at all": we could do without the strawman. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • MOS and articles titles are both listed under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. AFAICS, the "heated discussions and uncivil attacks" have not been limited to one person or "side" w.r.t. capitalization around sports topics.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Vanamonde93. A few posts above seem to want a bet each way (i.e. the "obstructionist" comment wasn't worth a block, but oh, wait, in the overall context). Really? Sounds like progressive punishment, in which the bar is raised at each stage. No, keep the bar at the same height over time for all editors. I have advised Dicklyon to depersonalise and soften any comments he makes—without wishing to endorse this hasty, unproductive block. Tony (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm sorry, but we can't be the civility police. There are too many cultures with different ideas of civility here, and no universal standard for what is ok and not ok, it is entirely too subjective so it ALWAYS leads to uneven enforcement. Personal attacks are different and obvious, but blocking for a mildly uncivil comment is going to be controversial and should be avoided. The comment was a bit rude, and worth a warning, but not blockworthy by itself. If it was an ongoing issue with many instances, these are better handled at ANI with the community deciding, not a single admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, but... That comment on its own wasn't worth a block, and I am uneasy about using an editor's block log to justify it, but I do think that Dicklyon needs a rest from this particular arena. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, per Dennis. I'll repeat what I said on Theleekycauldron's page: this was an unreasonable block for a fairly mild comment. Like Vanamonde, I'm not here out of general sympathy with Dicklyon. I agree that Dicklyon's attack on GoodDay a month ago was nasty, and I was the first to reproach Dicklyon for it. Perhaps I should have blocked. Anyway, after my comment, Vanamonde did block him for it. A previous unacceptable comment, for which Dicklyon has already been sanctioned (and, note, has already apologized), is not a good reason to block him for saying GoodDay is being obstructionist. Would you still have blocked if you had known he had apologized for the earlier comment, Theleekycauldron? I know you thought he had not, and used that as one argument for your block. (Here, you become aware of it.) Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Theleekycauldron has not replied to my question above, despite editing today — including editing AN itself — perhaps my ping didn't work. They sometimes don't. Trying again. Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Ah, thanks for the reping, Bishonen! I genuinely assumed it was more of a rhetorical question, I've gotten a couple of those over the past few days as well. To answer: Dicklyon's apology for the previous doesn't change my view on whether the current block was appropriate, though I do give points for good faith. An apology is a poor bandaid if you hurt the person in the same spot again – if an apology is meaningful as a commitment to be better, that commitment is broken on the second offense. Would it be worse if he hadn't? Sure. But I still think a block was warranted (although I am cognizant of the reasonable minds who differ in this thread and will take them into account going forward), and I still think an escalation was appropriate under the circumstances, given the insufficiency of said apology to prevent repeat behavior. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Bishonen—the voice of reason. Tony (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per the comments I made at Leeky's talk page and also Dicklyon's talk page. This isn't about the incident itself, which of course wouldn't merit a block on its own, but about the ongoing pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct over these capitalisation questions and, of late, a seemingly endless stream of low-level needling of other editors and questioning their motives in the wrong venues. If Dicklyon genuinely believes that GoodDay is being "obstructionist", then they should discuss that directly with the user on their talk page, showing evidence and diffs of what they're talking about, or raise the issue at WP:AN/I with the same so the community can assess. In the case at hand, Dickylon moved the page NHL Conference Finals to lower case without discussion, and (in good faith) did not notice that said page had an RM for the same move last year that failed to find consensus. GoodDay objected and raised a RM/TR request, which by the way is actually the proper due process, per WP:RMUM, particularly for previously discussed moves, and Dicklyon then said the page should not be reverted because GoodDay is obstructionist. I have often disagreed with GoodDay myself on various issues, but like any other editor they have the right to edit here without constantly having to face aspersions and accusations of bad faith. I really don't want there to be any long-term sanctions issued against Dicklyon because they do great work in general, but something's gone a bit wrong so far in 2024 and this needs to improve starting now.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I understand the history, but I do not think that particular interaction rises to anywhere close to a level of a block. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn The comment from the 22nd was inexcusable and Dicklyon was rightly blocked for it, and has apologised. However the I agree with others that this last comment comes nowhere close to blockable territory. It's the kind of thing where it would have been helpful for a friendly editor to to trout him a reminder to keep to the content not other editors, but nothing more. Editors should be on their best behaviour, but equally we shouldn't have to walk on eggshells. That's a balancing act, and this block fails that balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse My last interaction with this editor was battleground in nature[2] and that's been the pattern every time I see this editor pop up. I would recommend that this editor be topic banned indefinitely from MOS issues regarding capitalization. This type of behavior has been a problem for a very long time and it needs to stop. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Not so much 'per block log length', which is—perhaps—unfair, but at least partly due to the number of blocks this year and we're only in sodding February. Recidivism is important context. If Dicklyon 'needs a rest' from this topic area, it is merely another in a long line of 'rests' he has been encouraged to take. Often enforced. Regarding this specific issue, while the offence itself may not seem particularly egregious, it illustrates a mindset in which this is perfectly acceptable language to use with other editors and the level of respect they can be approached with. ——Serial 14:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, four blocks in the first two months of the year is a lot, but in fairness, it's a leap year, so February is longer than usual. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I see Primefac recently referred to a named user as "an idiot" here. Block time, surely, if "obstructionist" gets Dicklyon 72 hours. Would you like to self-block, Primefac? Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Consider this an invitation on my part for them to strike it. Besides being a personal attack, it's unhelpful. Casual rudeness is corrosive. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I just finished editing that comment to tone down the language; their subsequent reply made a not-unreasonable point making my initial comment a bit spicy. And yes, I should not have used that sort of language in the first place. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If we're playing incivility poker, I'll see your 'Idiot' comment and raise you to 'Piss off... you miserable little swine', by Tony1, which Bishonen subsequently defended on account of the, err, policy that Tony1 was a 'another of the FAC greats', whomsoever they are. ——Serial 16:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Nobody's nose is perfectly clean when it comes to incivility, and civility issues are never policed consistently. On a thread higher up the page, an admin rather rudely dismissed me as the person who chronically diminishes civility. This aspersion was not accompanied by evidence, although I suspect my prior opining on the topic of inconsistent civility enforcement is what prompted the remark. I'm sure one could easily compile a long list of recent instances in which admins made personal attacks or were otherwise rude/uncivil, but none of that would negate the problem with DL's editing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak endorse. I can see both sides here. The block was in good faith and justifiable, certainly; whether it was necessary and preventative I'm less certain. Ultimately we should expect an editor who was recently for personally attacking and bickering with another editor to refrain from further bickering with that very same editor and a block was reasonable for that recidivism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Dennis Brown and ActivelyDisinterested. The comment doesn't merit a block. Yes, I understand that previous incidents have, but not this one. It might be a good idea if he avoids the topic area, but that's his choice. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Block makes sense if Dicklyon was on Double Secret Probation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to title/sentence-case page-move ban - I think everyone here knows I'm a flag-bearer of coming down hard on incivility, but the comment in question here was so innocuous (and reasonably fair comment) as to boggle the mind why anyone thought that a block was a reasonable response, even considering WP:RECIDIVISM. However, there is clearly feeling among the sort of editors who regularly participate in move discussions of this sort that Dicklyon's participation is unproductive and disruptive: besides frequent personal attacks they bludgeon discussions, won't let things go, often relitigate settled discussions and frequently do things based on tenuously-related discussions or directly in the face of consensus. We're just inviting more problems if we allow them to continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  completely uninvolved editor, speaking up on behalf of other uninvolved editors: litigation of capitalization has jumped the shark. Pick the two worst offenders and give them a short topic ban. If disruption continues do two more. Maybe create a separate noticeboard for those who care. Draw straws or something. The disproportionate amount of time that is sucked up by these disputes is mind-boggling, and I prefer the lower case myself. Elinruby (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I don't think we should adopt any enforcement model that resembles the Hunger Games. But the long-running capitalization dispute could be bound for Arbcom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have heard of Hunger Games but never watched it. I believe it was something like the Thunderdome? Anyway.

  I am against escalating this to Arbcom for the same reasons. Nobody cares but the people who are in these disputes. The content creators of Wikipedia just want to know what the standardized format is.

  Well, snicker, maybe I care a little about over-capitalization, but putting up with it would be a small price to pay for not seeing something about this every time I venture onto a noticeboard. It's behaviour at this point. Flip a coin, people. I will now go away and tend to my own tasks. Regular programming will now resume. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - where's the blockable personal attack here? GiantSnowman 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would once again like to point out that, as I mentioned in my !vote, we're still debating a block that will now end within the next 24 hours. The Kip 09:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, well, the blocking admin dragged her feet about bringing it here for review; it took her 22 hours. Opening a discussion right away, or instead of blocking, would have been preferable. Compare my comment here, when she proposed waiting still longer. But I still think it would be worth actually lifting the block if it's deemed to be inappropiate. It makes a difference to how the block log looks, and to how the blockee feels; blocks are scarlet letters, not just a matter of not being able to edit for such-and-such a number of hours. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: agreed, this deserves an assessment of consensus before the block expires. It'd be pretty silly if admins could evade review of their actions by time-limiting them towards mootness – I'm not intending to do that here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's frustrating, and the blocking admin behavior here is subpar. Even though the Endorse comments outnumber the Overturns, it's not by a high proportion; it's clear the community doesn't have consensus the block was appropriate. theleekycauldron claimed they were bringing this to AN for review, but their earlier comment shows their disregard for a differing opinion and that there was no actual good-faith intention to lift the block if it lacked consensus (I still think a block was warranted (although I am cognizant of the reasonable minds who differ in this thread and will take them into account going forward)). It was 17 Endorse, 15 Oppose (16, if you count Floq) at the time she made that statement, so abundantly clear her actions did not have consensus backing from the community. Grandpallama (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that it is the status quo action that is to be overturned by consensus, normally of around two-thirds, not a consensus needed in favour of the action. Administrators are elected because the community places its trust in their judgment. It would be an untenable situation if any block could be overturned simply on the grounds that not enough people supported it. Hence there has to be a clear majority against it in order to counterweigh the trust originally placed. ——Serial 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Technically, yes. But since the question here is whether the block would have been supported in the first place, and whether theleekycauldron should have placed it on such a contentious claim of NPA without seeing if her thinking is in alignment with the community, and whether it should thus be maintained, I'd say that technicality ignores the reality of the situation. The discussion here shows there never would have been a clear majority to support this from the outset, and the notion that we elect admins because we place trust in their judgment is exactly how this discussion came to be--an admin making a call that caused members of the community (and of her fellow admin corps, specifically) to question her judgment. The foot-dragging that Bish has noted is a part of that problem: take an action that wouldn't have community support, then delay submitting for review, then count on the timer to run out so that your action stands. This is not what I expect from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and GoodDay's conduct WP:NPA states: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks. WP:RM#CM states: A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; [or,] someone could reasonably disagree with the move. GoodDay stating, No RM was held, does not satisfy either of the conditions for contesting the move. An RM is not mandatory. The statement by DL that GoodDay was ... being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves is a comment on GoodDay's behaviour. By way of evidence, DL also stated: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. To remove any doubt, DL has provided more specific evidence at his TP here (subsequent to the block). While raising this issue at WP:RMT may not be the most appropriate venue, it is not excluded. The rationale for the block is not supported by WP:NPA and should be overturned. Furthermore, if we are scrutinising DL's conduct and the rationale for the block, this cannot be done in isolation of GoodDay's conduct giving rise to DL's statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Outside of the context of Dicklyon's ongoing incivility this is very minor, but the comment was very much made within that context so considering it in isolation is wikilawyering. There are three possibilities here: (1) Dicklyon knows personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate but chooses to continue making them anyway, in which case blocking them until such time as they are willing to contribute collegiately is appropriate; (2) Dicklyon knows personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate but is unable to understand what is and isn't a personal attack/personalising a dispute, in which case we have CIR issues that have been going on so long that we should be seriously considering a ban on those grounds; (3) Dicklyon doesn't know (or understand) that personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate, in which case we have very serious CIR issues and are probably a net negative to the project. For his sake, I hope it's 1.
  If GoodDay's behaviour is sufficiently bad that it rises to the levels of needing sanction then the answer is to sanction both of them, not to give them both a free pass. The latter is how we end up with toxic editing environments that drive editors away from the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Their targeting of GoodDay needs to be addressed and this was an appropriate way to do so. Dicklyon also knows better than to try to act like one league downcasing "Finals" to "finals" is justification for downcasing every instance, he's been involved in numerous move discussions because of this exact premise. Hell he literally started the last move discussion for NHL Conference Finals that ended in no consensus. He's well aware that different leagues may result in different capitalizations but went ahead with it anyways, despite the obvious and expected pushback. I basically begged Dicklyon in a long threaded conversation last month to start holding RMs when downcasing "Draft" to "draft" instead of "being bold" (he eventually declined this request). On February 8th I reached out and said: "I think, at this point in time, it's safe to presume that renaming pages from "Draft" to "draft" would be moves that someone could reasonably disagree with. As such, moving forward and based on WP:PCM, would you please start RM discussions prior to moving pages from "Draft" to "draft"? – He then went forward with the move I was directly referring to, using a move summary of "Overwhelmingly lowercase in sources; no conceivable reason for anyone to object", despite me telling him directly that it was clearly not an uncontroversial one. He was blocked for this, so I'm not requesting any type of action on it, but it's relevant to the current situation. This is an extension and another clear example of Dicklyon's inability to work well with others and respect the process when it comes to their capitalization efforts. If I'm counting correctly, Dicklyon has been blocked 11 times for edit warring, twice for personal attacks, once for move warring, and once for socking. They've been blocked four times this year and it seems like every time they apologize. At what point do we say enough is enough? Time and again they continue to move pages, despite an obvious and expected pushback, in direct opposition to WP:PCM, and then they criticize anybody who reverts them. GoodDay had good reason to oppose the move given that there had been a previous discussion on the topic. In this case, it goes against both aspects of WP:PCM, in that there would be expected pushback and there had at one point been a debate about the best title for the page. I'd support a topic ban or restriction of some kind. This is a ridiculous amount of leash we've given to someone who should clearly know and understand the lines but continues to disrespect them. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm going to share an opinion without making a vote because I'm on the fence.

  On the one hand, saying someone is "just being obstructionist" is not what I would call an "attack" or "uncivil." It's negative, it's criticism, but it's not an attack, not a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, neither of which prohibit criticism of others. In isolation, if someone were blocked for saying that, I'd vote to overturn that block.

  On the other hand, this isn't in isolation. More than a dozen editors have said, in so many words, "enough is enough," and I agree with them. IMO if the block cited WP:DISRUPT or WP:BATTLE instead of citing WP:NPA, it would have been roundly endorsed, maybe not even challenged.

  Then there is the question of whether a block, as opposed to a ban, was the best remedy. I'm not sure about that, either. It seems a sanction was warranted, but perhaps not this particular sanction, and perhaps something stronger than this sanction.

  I don't like the idea of endorsing a "right block for the wrong reason," nor voting to overturn a 72hr block when I think an indef TBAN may have been merited.

  It's a tough call, and I have the luxury of not having to make it. What I am sure about, though, is that I disagree that 22 hours is "foot dragging." It's hardly worth pointing out that a 72hr block review will take longer than the block; that's true of every short sanction. I don't think it's wise to rush, or to pressure others to rush, simply to try and come to an answer before a short sanction expires. I want admins to be able to sleep on it and take a day to decide whether their actions should be self-reversed or not. I want the community to have the time to be able to consider difficult or complex issues and come to well-thought-out consensus, not rushed consensus. It's not like Dicklyon was sentenced to 72 hours of torture; it's OK if he has to not edit for three days, even if the sanction ends up being overturned later.

  One thing that the split vote proves to all of us is that this was neither a clearly good, nor a clearly bad, block. The only thing that's clear is that opinion is divided, and that is clearly a reason not to rush to any conclusions. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  One thing that's come up periodically over the years is that the community has consistently struggled with how to deal with needling. Which is to say a series of remarks made by someone over time that disparage, slight, or irritate, each of which individually may not be an issue, but that when taken as a whole poison the collaborative environment. I don't think any consensus is likely to emerge from this discussion either, but it may be worth bringing up again some time in the future when passions from this have cooled and the issue can be discussed more abstractly. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn I get that Dicklyon has had several previous blocks, but this just isn't a personal attack. Calling someone "obstructionist" is so mild it should never be blockworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter much, at this point, but a late Overturn. If it's a history-based problem, then I guess there are interaction bans (which I'm not fond of either), otherwise saying someone is "being obstructionist" simply is not a personal attack. Maybe it's an incorrect description of behavior, I don't care, we all occasionally fail in our judgment of other people's behavior, but it's not a personal attack. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This should probably be closed as moot, as the block has expired and there is no obvious consensus that it was a bad block. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even the admin whose action is under review seems to disagree with that idea: It'd be pretty silly if admins could evade review of their actions by time-limiting them towards mootness – I'm not intending to do that here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block per a lot of the above. And yes I'm aware the block has expired. JM (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - This conduct does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of a block. Moreover, as I am sure has been mentioned here already, Dick has already apologized for his conduct. Overturn the block and move on. Obstructionst comes off as more of a comment on editing, not a personal attack. Bad block. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Expired – Thank you all for your opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see some of y'all are still arguing about the expired block. That really doesn't matter any more. Now if you want to get into the basis for my admittedly rude comments about GoodDay's behavior, that does deserve a bit more attention, as Cinderella's attempt to discuss it below was shut down without getting to the bottom of it, or even getting my input (as I was blocked at the time, remember?). It wasn't just one or two things, as some of my quoted comments to and about him illustrate (the closer below thought it was about "the reversion of undiscussed moves" which really misses the big picture as well as the details). But maybe that's for another time. Dicklyon (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  GoodDay was well within their right to request the move be reversed. Especially given that one of the ones they had requested to be reverted had a previous move discussion which ended in no consensus. As we've discussed in the past, per WP:PCM, any type of move that one could expect an objection to (which should obviously include pages that include "Draft" or "Final" in the title for any major sports league) should have a move discussion started prior to the move. You know this, it's part of the consensus building process, respect the process and don't try to bypass it when opposition to a move is obviously anticipated. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Dicklyon by now, it can be left to another time. That time being when we're all back here sooner rather than later and discussing your imminent indef blocking for IDHT recidivism. Why I say that? Because your comment above shows that if you honestly think people here were merely 'giving opinions', then you have somewhat misjudged the situation, and 'if' becomes 'when'. ——Serial 15:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect your correct just based on comments left since the block ended. Calling another editor's comment a "rant"[3] suggests no lessons have been learned. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Criticism of another's argument is not hostility. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  When an editor has been recently warned over and over one would think they wouldn't be calling other editor's good faith arguments "rants." That's not a simple criticism and the suggestion is rather weak. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Really, this is a good faith argument? : "This notion that the MOS somehow supersedes official formal titles -- or that individual editors know better than the league as to what the NHL is permitted to call its own institutions -- is getting very, very tiresome." The dictionary definition of a rant is a long angry or impassioned statement; maybe this is not long enough to qualify? But it's certainly a nasty strawman, since nobody had suggested that any Wikipedian knows better than the league, nor did any of us suggest any restrictions on how the league could name and style their stuff. Give me a better word than rant for next time I want to call out such nonsense. I think his real point was that he finds following guidelines very tiresome – maybe he should have just said so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't care about your content dispute. I care about your general inability to discuss your disputes in a civil manner. Nemov (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  ^^^This. DL's inability to listen to what others are saying, immediately after a block for, err, not listening to what other's are saying, is almost Olypmian in the dizzy heights of IDHT it reaches. ——Serial Number 54129 14:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I requested (at RMTR) that three unilateral page moves be reversed, with the reasoning that no RM was held for two of the pages & a previous RM was held with a no consensus result on the other page. Seeing as my requests were accepted (i.e the page moves were reversed), it's obvious that my reasoning was accepted as valid. Now, Dicklyon's block expired days ago, so let's rap this up & close the "block review". GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above already, "(the closer below thought it was about "the reversion of undiscussed moves" which really misses the big picture as well as the details)", my observation that this is just you being obstructionist was not about that particular revert proposal, which was perfectly fine as a standalone thing, but rather about it being just one more step in a multi-year history of routinely obstructing efforts to bring capitalization in sports articles in line with guidelines. You're of course entitled to your opinions in oppostion to such efforts, but as so many here have observed, your behavior goes beyond that, routinely flying in the face of guidelines and creating lots of extra work for everyone, and might be fairly characterized the way I did. Hopefully I won't be blocked yet again for reminding you of that observation, and of how many people thought it was fair for me to let you know that that's how you were coming across. But, as I also said above, this is not the time and place to get to the bottom of that. If you are particularly interested in what actions of yours are behind my observation, I'm happy to have that conversation at either of our talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good time for you to focus on your own behavior and not on others. If you're TBANed from the MOS, you won't be able to remind anyone or have any conversation about any of it. If your take-away here is that the community thinks you were right, you're wrong. Don't ignore how many people voting overturn nonetheless raised serious concerns about your behavior. You don't have to be contrite but you should at least be quiet. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn while this is an after-the-fact point after "time served", it should be noted significant opposition was present. I concur with Vandemonde (sp). If nothing else, it should be noted. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The alleged transgressions here, to the extent that I can find them, seem pretty mild. Calling it like you see it is not necessarily a personal attack. I have certainly been on the receiving end of worse from people who were not blocked and are still around and do not seem chastised. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. We're at 13,000 words and still going over a 3 day block that expired 6 days ago. Perhaps it is time to close this as no consensus? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: Quite. No consensus for what, though...? ——Serial Number 54129 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus to overturn. No consensus to endorse. No consensus to do much of anything is my read of this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. But as someone who voiced the opinion to overturn the block, I would like to echo something that has been reverberating here. Prospectively, the odds are against you, Dicklyon, if you don't stop dismissing other people's contributions and behavior with that kind of language. I do not like the increasing rigidity of some of the civility enforcement on en.wp, but it's a reality, and I've seen other good editors crash and even get site-banned for stuff I did not deem banworthy. The dynamics of civility-enforcement are only one factor for my not betting money on you not being sanctioned if you don't reconsider; other factors include repeatedly being the topic of reports on this board, for example. I do think you should follow Levivich's advice here, even if there's something unfair about telling the target of a thread to shut up. Sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay's conduct at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

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

---

As noted in my comment above, ... if we are scrutinising DL's conduct and the rationale for the block, this cannot be done in isolation of GoodDay's conduct giving rise to DL's statement. DL made this statement regarding GoodDay's conduct: GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves; accompanied by the statement in evidence: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. DL has offered further evidence at their TP, which I am copying into this thread below. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're asking for evidence of the obstruction I was referring to, it's these:

• [4] and [5] Reverting my changes, solely on the basis of no RM done, without opposing the substance of these case fixes.
• [6] Reverting change to disambig page, leaving it in an inconsistent state
• [7] Requests at WP:RMTR to revert my moves, without mentioning a reason to prefer the capitalized form (which is exactly where we were when I wrote the removed personal attack "GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves", not as a personal attack, but as a characterization of these edits).

If he had said "I think these should be capped, because ..." or something like that, then we'd have something to discuss at an RM discussion. But neither he nor anyone at the discussion he started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#NHL Conference Finals moved to NHL conference finals has given a reason to prefer caps. It's all just procedural obstruction: "Not without going the RM route." After a month of discussion at the RM at Talk:NBA conference finals, I thought we had hashed out all the relevant issues and arguments, though we would point out different data of course. That discussion seemed to me like it served to make these others clearly within the consensus to follow MOS:CAPS. So why does he want to discuss all that yet again? There's no remaining controversy. I don't get it. Also note that at that wikiproject discussion, several editors (Hockey project members, I presume) defended my moves as correct and appropriate. I'm wondering if that's why the RMTR revert requests have not been done yet. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Copied here from User talk:Dicklyon#February 2024. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue with GoodDay requesting that these moves be reverted. Dicklyon should know these are not uncontroversial moves at this point after 10+ years of dealing with capitalization discussions. I could tell you without thinking about it that they would be and I've only been paying attention to these discussions for a year. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Again, this is just more WP:BATTLEGROUND activity on this topic. Frankly, the regulars in this CAPS war need to stand down. Calling GoodDay an obstructions is just another baseless accusation. Nemov (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• The moves were obviously controversial, a previous discussion which Dicklyon started determined there was no consensus for the move (and in move discussions, "no consensus" means don't move the page), and then Dicklyon moved them anyway, cherrypicking a consensus from a similar discussion on a different topic. The moves should not have happened, and GoodDay asking for them to be reverted was the correct course of action. Dicklyon is relying on first mover advantage (pun not intended): they moved the pages to their preferred title without a valid rationale and are now demanding a rationale for moving them back, which is treating the debate as a battle to be won, and that's not how this works. Doubling down on that tendentious logic suggests they should not participate in this debate any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having said that, maybe BilledMammal's NAC close of Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 25 February 2023 should be revisited. The closer acknowledged that those supporting the move (to sentence case) had the stronger overall argument, but then closed as no consensus anyway on the basis of numerical opposition. That is precisely the sort of bad close described by WP:YOGURT. Still, the approach to an improper close is to review or challenge it, not wait a while and then move the page anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Their move reason was Change to sentence case (MOS:AT).[8] That seems like a plausible GF rationale, even if one finds it debatable. —Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a good rationale to move a page where you've already proposed the move for that specific reason and it was found to have no consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I mentioned this above, but I don't think GoodDay should continue to make requests to revert moves if the only reason provided above is "No RM was held". I don't think the disambiguation page edit was good. None of this is major stuff, but if we can suggest an improvement to a prolific editor, we should. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if undiscussed moves shouldn't be reverted, why does WP:RM#TR have a separate "requests to revert undiscussed moves" subsection? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Surely we agree that not all undiscussed moves should be reverted. Some should. When pushing for such a reversion, one should provide a reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I wish the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" was in a guideline, but it's only an essay. —Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Attempts to shift the scrutiny onto GoodDay are inappropriate. GoodDay has not done anything wrong. The problem is with Dicklyon's editing, specifically regarding both his battleground approach to article capitalization and his repeated personalized remarks about GoodDay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Followup discussion

Regarding GoodDay's conduct

1. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for NHL conference finals with the rationale Recent unilateral page move, goes against 2023 RM result. This reason is consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
2. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for KHL conference finals with the rationale No RM was held. This reason is not consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
3. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for Conference finals with the rationale No RM was held. This reason is not consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
4. The page Conference finals is a disambiguation to three pages: NHL conference finals, KHL conference finals and NBA conference finals. The last was down-cased as a result of Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. Each league is divided into two conferences, eastern and western, and each conference conducts a final. Each page from the disamibuation page discusses the two conference finals for each respective league. the title Conference Finals is a general term that collectively describes the six conference finals in the three respective leagues. Conference finals is intrinsically a descriptive noun phase - a final played by a conference, of which six are being referred to by the title. Conference finals does not refer to a particular referrant. There is no reasonable argument to assert this is other than a common noun when used as a stand-alone noun phrase, especially when conference finals is explicitly down-cased for the NBA finals, one of the titles. This is especially clear from the close of Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024.
5. At Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024, the substantive argument was that: NBA Eastern Conference Final and NBA Western Conference Final "might" be capitalised as the formal name of these events, NBA Conference Finals was not a specific event, it was referred to in the plural and is a descriptive term for the two specific events; and, while it might be capitalised by the NBA, the NBA is not an independent source. There was overwhelming support for the move based on this argument and no substantive policy based argument to dispute this.
6. Having participated in the RfC, GoodDay was aware of the discussion and of the close.
7. While there are two different leagues being considered, the conditions giving rise to the substantive arguments at NBA clearly apply. If there is good reason to believe that the result of an RM for these two leagues would be different from NBA in the light of the NBA RM, then this should have been given. No RM was held is not a good reason of itself. It falls to I don't like it.
8. Without good reason to believe that an RM might reasonably result in retaining capitalisation, then the action of requiring an RM just for the sake of process is just wasting everybody's time. It can reasonably be seen as Wikilawyering, pettifogging, making a point or stonewalling (all with Wiki links), which are all examples of disruptive editing and/or editing in bad faith. This can also reasonably be described as obstructionist.

Consequently, it is reasonable to raise the issue of such behaviour, especially in the case of the disambigation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• What is is about MOS CAPS issues that lends itself to editors discussing matters in wall of text? No wonder this disruptive behavior never goes to ArbCom. Who has the time to weed though paragraphs worth of text to address it? As I mentioned in the close review a few days ago, the community is encouraging this disruptive behaviour. Nemov (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if a word limit of say 100 words per person per comment in all discussions about MOS:CAPS would help? Any comments longer than that would simply be truncated with sanctions for gaming it. If we don't so something to rein in the length and incivility of these discussions it will end up at arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a bad idea. Anything we can do to reduce the number issue regarding this topic would be helpful. Nemov (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given the contentious nature of those discussions, and the toxic atmosphere MOS discussions currently have, I'd absolutely support a limit to the number of replies and/or words. The sections for the 3 MOS related discussions at AN right now total over 177kb. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  When there are a lot of facts at issue (who did exactly what for what reasons, in relation to what previous edits, and under what policy, guidelines, procedural rules, etc., etc.), then posts like Cinderella157's are necessarily going to be detailed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: I'm quite concerned by the logic presented in this argument. The NBA discussion ABSOLUTELY does not apply to other leagues, especially those in different sports, and Dicklyon KNOWS this based on a litany of past discussions related to downcasing "Final" to "final". Otherwise every single page with "Final" in it would have been downcased by now and that's just not how it works. I find it quite peculiar that you, also being very experienced in MOS related discussions, are trying to make this argument. GoodDay is under no obligation to start an RM after protesting against an article being moved. Especially when Dicklyon started the last RM discussion a year ago to the day, which ended in no consensus. To be blunt, this is starting to come off as a group of MOS enthusiasts targeting GoodDay. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The thing is, GoodDay doesn't have a reasonable rationale for starting such an RM, and it's entirely predictable what the result would be. Thus, there was no sensible rationale for RMTR, either. That is, there is no real controversy to settle, only a "drawn out process or else" approach which is ultimately a waste of editors' time and their patience with each other. We apply the P&G by default; exception are something that require excellent evidence or solid P&G rationale, which are clearly, demonstrably lacking behind GoodDay's resistance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The last RM, started a year prior to the day by Dicklyon himself, ended as no consensus. That's a really bad look, even if it truly was unintentional. WP:PCM, a link I mentioned to Dicklyon I believe 4 times earlier this month, states two different criteria for when a page is likely to be controversial and this fits both of them. It states that the RM process should be used if there's any reason to believe the move would be contested, which there definitely was. This very clearly fits that criteria and it makes sense to reverse the move and have a proper discussion. We can't just CRYSTALBALL it and make the decision ourselves based on what we think the outcome will/should be if there was a past discussion on it. Further, it's pretty silly for someone of his experience, and also of Cinderella's, to suggest that an RM for a different league of a different sport would apply, they both know better. I appreciate that you didn't focus on that aspect of their argument, but I really don't believe this is the situation to be calling GoodDay's behaviour into question given the actions and the arguments being made. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I tend to agree that GoodDay's behavior was obstruction or process-mongering for its own sake, which is contrary to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:WIKILAWYER, even perhaps WP:POINT. It's entirely correct that "no RM was held" is not a rationale for move-reverting. But it doesn't seem to be worth taking some kind of action about, and it's fine that the proposal to take some kind of action closed without any. On the other hand, Dicklyon should not have been blocked for objecting to this GoodDay behavior. Is everyone here observing it was a bit problematic going to be punitively blocked now? [sigh] Tempers have run hot in this general organized-sports subject area when it comes to capitalization, and everyone should just relax and take some time off from squabbling about it (and, administratively, from severe and one-sided overreaction to people squabbling about it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  But an RM was held, a year prior to the very day, by Dicklyon himself and it ended in no consensus. I also fail to see how this is a general issue with sports related editors, but I don't think that's a discussion for this venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere except creating more wall of text nonsense. Close it up or start handing out topic bans. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Responding to Hey man im josh, where I have been explicitly mentioned and also pinged. GoodDay challenged three moves. In which only one had been subject to a previous RM. I acknowledged this in my first numbered point and that the challenge was consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM. An argument made as if NHL conference finals were the only consideration is attacking the strawman. Furthermore, whether one can challenge a move is not the same as whether one should. The substantive case at the RM for downcasing NBA conference finals (plural) is that there are an NBA Eastern Conference Final and an NBA Western Conference Final. The NHL and KHL are identical in this, the material respect. The actual game played by the NBA had no bearing whatsoever on that RM nor will it in respect to these other leagues. Could someone reasonably disagree with the move [emphasis added]? Reasonableness is a reflection upon the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. It is one thing to oppose a move, citing reasonable reasons to disagree with it. It is unreasonable to oppose a move just because one can. Citing WP:CRYSTAL is a misuse of that link. It would deny the intelligence of editors (and humans more generally) to learn through experience. GoodDay's behaviour is directly related to the observation of being obstructionist and hence this AN section. It is perfectly reasonable to examine their conduct here and reflect upon it in the fuller discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, just drop it, because the more you try to argue that an unrelated RM applies, the worse it actually looks. Tell me why we need more than one RM and every page with "final" has not already been downcased then. GoodDay was not unreasonable in protesting a move, they have every right to do so and Dicklyon is competent enough to know there was GOING to be pushback or he shouldn't be moving pages at all. He's been making these moves for 10 years.

The move was contested, you don't get to harass someone for contesting it. You're being unreasonable by not dropping the stick and you need to recognize that. Go through the process, be an adult, don't respond to closed chats to further try to push for actions against someone. This easily could have been said on my talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Please move away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Closure

I already endorsed the original block, so I probably shouldn't be the one to close it. But we're clearly circling the drain here, and it seems obvious that nothing productive will happen here. Can an uninvolved admin please close this so we can all move on? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Sound.wav created despite salting

According to the protection policy, File:Sound.wav is supposed to be empty and salted, and the log for the file confirms that it's protected against creation, but somehow it was created by a user in Commons and now exists here. Or, I guess, auto-links to the Commons file. I'm posting this here even though I guess it's sort of a deletion request because it's in effect bypassing a creation protection here and maybe some action needs to be taken to prevent this in the future, here or in other Files --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's salted only here, not on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really stupid that random stuff on Commons can override en.wp salting, although I guess that's a consequence of the system being extremely weird and bespoke to begin with. At any rate, I've uploaded a dummy file to File:Sound.wav (a 132-byte file consisting of 0.001 seconds of silence), and full-protected that. jp×g🗯️ 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the Commons file should rather be renamed; the Commons policy allows renames of meaningless titles. I'll see how to find a new name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Renamed and requested salting, so the local copy can probably go again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really stupid that random stuff on Commons can override en.wp salting. Could create a Phabricator ticket for this. That'd be the first step to getting it fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The file has since been deleted and salted on Commons, so I think we can safely delete this file now. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done even though I fat-fingered the rationale. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@78.26: Well, if it makes you feel better, my comment did imply that the local file ought to be deleted if the issue was resolved ;^) jp×g🗯️ 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Yeah, that’s right. Clearly an G7. I know precisely what I’m doing at all times. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Commerce

User @MrOllie , constantly reverts completely scientific, correct, referenced and sourced image and content on commerce for personal reasons.Even though I talked to him several times and explained to him,In response, he says that the added image is not a commercial ship, but a boat! And it has nothing to do with that article. I would be grateful if you check.Thanks Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Kavehkdf1402, you boldly edited the article and MrOllie reverted you. The next step is to discuss the issue on the talk page, not to re-revert or start a discussion here. I see no mention of this issue on Talk:Commerce. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I talked to him on my talk page, but unfortunately he insists on his position.The image is completely related to the subject of article (a commercial ship carrying commercial cargo) and its caption is also sourced and correct. First,he said that this is a boat! And now he says it is decorative.I will be very grateful if you take a look at the edit and tell me what is wrong with it.

According to Wikipedia policies, if an edit has a problem, it is better to fix it in the first place than to delete it immediately! But this user seems to be very interested in reverting.This will definitely discourage new users.

Additionally, most of my edits are reverted by this user only. If there is a problem with edits, why can only this user recognize it?! That's why I'm reporting his behavior here. Thanks Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, my edit wasn't 'boldly' at all ,l just added a perfectly relevant image to the article. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger is correct. Just as MrOllie doesn't automatically decide on whether the image should be added, you don't automatically get to decide either. See WP:BRD (which is what he meant be "bold"). Go to the article talk page, stop the insults, and have a calm rational discussion. If that doesn't result in an agreement, then follow the steps outlined here: WP:Dispute Resolution. If you both are less brusque with each other, it will make it more likely that other people will want to join the discussion. It's time to stop reverting each other on the article, though. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning that the image caption is a copy and paste of the cited source. It seems that the main focus of Kavehkdf1402's edits so far are pasting dictionary definitions into various articles. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please prove that the image caption was copy and paste.

If it was like that, it would be better to correct it instead of saying that this is a boat! Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please prove that the image caption was copy and paste. - Anyone may read what you wrote and notice that there is completely identical wording in the citation. I might've reported it as a copyvio, but I find it borderline due to the length. There were multiple reasons to revert in this case. That it is a decorative picture of a boat and not anything that serves an educational purpose is another one. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently you still call the ship a boat!? Amazing ! Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The two words are synonyms, and that is the one I used, yes. I realize you have some kind of issue with this (as you wrote: You don't even know the difference between a boat and a ship. Dear friend, you don't need to edit all the topics you don't have expertise in. [9]). But choice of synonym is obviously not the substantive issue. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear God, please do not respond to this here, Kavehkdf. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone has objections (or just closes it), I'm going to move this to Talk:Commerce as it appears to be a content dispute. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not just a content dispute. Just visit his talk page, you will notice that many others are also complaining about his way of reverting.

The tone of his words is not at all suitable for Wikipedia and can easily anger anyone.

Although it is not unusual for me to make minor mistakes as a newcomer, the insulting and mocking tone of this user has hurt many others.

My request to the respected admin is to reconsider this user's ability to revert.Many thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You both used a poor tone, and it caused this minor run-of-the-mill dispute to escalate to AN for no reason. The opinion of this particular respected admin is that you should discuss the content issues calmly and respectfully on the article talk page, and this AN thread should be closed. Primefac, I don't think I'd move it over if I were you, I think them starting a fresh discussion focused solely on content would work better. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this user still accuses me of copy and paste. Until he proves this accusation, I do not agree to close this discussion. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It was not a copy-paste. It appears to be a close paraphrase of the definition in the source. Since it a 1-sentence definition, I don't think this is a problem. Done. Now PLEASE start discussing this on the article talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As you said, there is no problem with that edit.As you can see, this user stubbornly insists on his position and considers the ship to be a boat! How can you argue with him?! At least my request is that you revert the edit to end this issue. Thank you very much. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway ,I believe that someone who enjoys bullying and harassing others (whether through accusations, insults or humiliation) does not deserve to have access to some high abilities. In terms of public responsibility, I found it necessary that this behavior may require reconsideration of this user's access ,so I reported it .

However ,the opinion of the administrators is respected.Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are literally describing some of your conduct on that page. Accusing people of vandalism for minor differences of opinion, telling them they can't participate because they have no knowledge, and mocking their use of vocabulary all qualify as "through accusations, insults, or humiliation." If you think this image is necessary, then make your case in the talk page , rather than inappropriately escalating a small content dispute. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out one's lack of knowledge in a field is not "mockery".Rather, if he has knowledge in that field, using an inappropriate word is "mockery".

Secondly, reverting a valid and reliable edit with personal excuses such as "It's decorative, It's a dictionary definition, It's not necessary, It's copy-paste" is a form of vandalism.

Thirdly, he has accused me of copy-paste exactly in this talk ,a claim denied by an admin.

In the end, this discussion has been raised in the talk page, but what's the point when no one answers? My request is that you at least go there and comment on the image and its caption.Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This does not require a response from anyone, but I think it's an appropriate place to point out that Wikipedia does not require editors to have knowledge in a field. Whether you are knowledgeable about boats, or another editor is not knowledgeable about boats, is irrelevant to the question of whether information belongs in an article or not. As such, there is rarely an appropriate time to criticize or point out another user's lack of knowledge. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people have replied at Talk:Commerce. I know Floquenbeam didn't want a reply on this issue but a ship is simply a large boat and a boat is a small ship. There's no clear dividing line between them so there's nothing to get worked up about. The image source says, "Commerce is the trade of goods, services, or other things of value between companies or organizations", and your caption says, "Commerce is the trading of goods, services, or other things of value by businesses or organizations". That's not an exact copy-paste but as near as damn it. It is probably not long enough to be a copyright violation but it is still a copy-paste. This has only become an issue because you have blown up a simple disagreement about an image, such as happens many times every day. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No one calls what was in that picture a boat.This is really very simple! You seem to blame me anyway.

If you think I'm guilty, I'm not afraid to apologize. But if you look a little fair and just, you will realize that it is better for @MrOllie to treat other contributors better.

If from the beginning instead of harsh behavior, the same scientific discussion was done and problems were raised, this issue would not exist.

Anyway, according to the admins, I won't continue this discussion here. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You are letting a trivial issue (ship vs. boat) rule you here instead of looking at the bigger picture. You asked for proof that the caption was a copy-paste. I provided it, but you simply ignored the issue. We (or at least I) are not concerned with finding anyone guilty or looking for apologies, but simply with getting disagreeing editors to talk to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right. But it is different for short and general definitions. Suppose that in a definition, many sources have used the same words. So we can't use these words anymore?? So what should we use? This is the definition that everyone accepts and it is found in all sources. Also, changing it may harm its meaning. So it is difficult if not impossible.

Copy-pasting is when, for example, a long article is copied with the exact same words.

As I said before, I don't want to continue the discussion here. If you want to continue, come to the Talk page in Commerce please.

Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• MrOllie notified on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Backlog report at PERM/PCR

There has been a backlog in WP:PERM/PCR for last few backs - 4 or 5 such requests were pending for more than 7 days. None of admins is bothered to see that rather than responding to new request. Can something be done on this? -CSMention269 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Gdavis22 is Promotion-only account

• Gdavis22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sills Cummis & Gross
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 16
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_4#Sills_Cummis_&_Gross

The only activity by User:Gdavis22 has first been arguing Keep at an AFD of an article that was really a directory profile, for Sills, Cummis & Gross, and then submitting two Deletion Review requests to reinstate the deleted article. The problem with the Keep at the AFD was that the user did not declare a conflict of interest. The article was redirected to one of the firm's partners. The first DRV did not state any error with the AFD, and so was AFD round 2, but DRV is not AFD round 2. The second DRV, three weeks later, is vexatious litigation, as well as being an attempt at AFD round 3. I request that the account be either blocked as a promotion-only account, or partially blocked from DRV. A topic-ban will be a good idea, but is only necessary if the account isn't just blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly needs to WP:DISCLOSE, and they seem to have been just bothering editors' talk pages regarding the deletion review for SC&G. Even uninvolved editors. I support a block for now. But keep it open to an unblock if they agree to disclose and not be disruptive, if they want to recreate the article to submit through AfC, etc. TLA^tlak 02:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I blocked for UPE out of the DRV. They're welcome to file an unblock that indicates what else they wish to edit about, but this was ridiculous. Star Mississippi 03:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced additions to a corporate article

Over at the Teleperformance article user Coconutshrimp has been constantly trying to remove well-source additions to the Controversies section. Some admin oversight would be good to try and get a more neutral view on the matter. Defending a corporation blindly surely isn't healthy for Wikipedia in my view. Perhaps these additions can be improved upon but not removed entirely given their relevance to the topic as well as being supported by neutral sources. Gnkgr (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I see at Talk: Teleperformance is you, Gnkgr making evidence free accusations of racism against Coconutshrimp, and Coconutshrimp making evidence free accusations of vandalism against you. That is suboptimal behavior from both of you. So, I am warning the two of you to stop casting aspersions and limit yourself to productive and collaborative discussion about how best to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to agree with User:Cullen328's assessment. I'm inclined to fully protect the page, but I'm hoping everyone chooses to act like adults and discuss sourcing on the talk thread. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Move a draft article into a sandbox

Hi,

I currently have a draft for an article I wrote saved separately but I want to move it into my WikiEDU sandbox so my TA can see it. I tried to copy it over but it wouldn't let me. Here is the link for the draft Draft:Economics of Gold#Supply and Demand and I would like to move it here User:Russellmorden/Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Economics+of+Gold&create=Create+page

If you could help me with this that would be great!

Thanks,

Russell Russellmorden (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done: User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

R. Indira edits issue

I am observing that User:Indirasociology is continuously adding and removing contents on the page without source or explanation. As this is a COI issue, this user was notified but still ignored to such and keep on doing changes on R. Indira. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 10:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Vanderwaalforces:. --CSM269 (talk | contrib) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and there appear to be another account Indira Ramarao, but looks like Tacyarg already filed a noticeboard thread at COI/N. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Guess there is the place I should have reported earlier. Thanks. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 11:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello! I don't really know how to handle this, but I just realized that something should probably be done about it. I'm pretty sure Arabella A. Daniel is violating copyvio things on page Cleanaway, directly copying from the sources listed. Thanks, _Dial^mayo 15:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm being so unconfident about this, just look at this URL and this diff. Here's the link to Earwig. _Dial^mayo 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dialmayo Yep, all copyvios. Now handled - thanks for the report. For reference Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 is a simple guide on how to deal with copyvios. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's bookmarked now. _Dial^mayo 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep You missed a diff, the 07:02, 5 March 2024‎ edit by Atremari also contains the copyvio. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

done. Nthep (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Block request

Why isn't there a link on the words "Block requests" above. I can't figure out how to get an IP blocked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Because blocking can be requested via different venues me thinks; see Wikipedia:BLOCKREQUESTS. Lectonar (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Those words should be linked to that link.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Involved page protection by yours truly

I semi'd Susan Gerbic for two months, as I believe any administrator would have. I am involved, however, so I'm noting it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you're involved? Reverting nonsense doesn't make you involved. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, where they were one of the named parties. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. There is obviously some off-wiki campaign that needs a swift response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is obviously some off-wiki campaign that needs a swift response Absolutely. Details of that campaign(s) are available at the FTN discussions here and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• What Reaper said. Not really involved if your edits aren't "editorial", and are instead just maintenance, removal of obvious junk. But no harm in dropping it off here either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

#wikid

Anyone know what this is? Don't see it here or HD/Teahouse. It's in my TL on Elizabeth Diller by Mdlawton11 Nothing wrong with the edit, just flagging for awareness and insight as some of these end up being complex, especially w/r/t BLPs. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That sort of thing often indicates to me a project of some kind though I can’t identify it offhand. I see there are three new editors on that page, I’ll drop welcome messages on their talk pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. See also [10]. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red may know. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this relates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone mind working on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled?

It's not particularly time sensitive, but I'm mildy annoyed seeing a request of mine languish in the queue for almost a month. Mach61 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Community expectations around Autopatrolled Rights: Aciram

I do not intend to request a revocation of the autopatrolled flag yet because I have had not the time to take a detailed look but Aciram, an editor who has been auto-patrolled for over a decade, is writing articles like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I wish to know if these samples satisfy the current standards governing the grant of the flag. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No, probably not. But I would like to note here, that it appears that Aciram was just automatically given Autopatrolled rights because they were on a bot whitelist. They don't appear to have ever asked for this, and don't appear to have ever been told it happened, and don't appear to have ever been told there are heightened expectations that go with autopatrolled (I did a slightly cursory review, I'll strike out anything that isn't correct, but I think this is accurate). So from their point of view, they're just sitting there minding their own business, doing the same they've always done (which is contributing over 100,000+ edits to WP), and then with no warning get reported at AN fairly brusquely. Frankly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bots grant autopatrolled? I did not know of that; sorry such being the case. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it appears (again, not 100% sure) they were on a bot whitelist, and an admin came along when that whitelist got phased out and just granted autopatrolled. Things worked differently 15 years ago. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - will keep this in mind! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam So, three editors (including two admins) told them in no uncertain terms that he needs to cite page-numbers when citing books. Well, he is still not citing them as my examples show. I am sure we can find more in the t/p archives. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If this thread is going to become "list of things Aciram does that I don't like", let's be honest about the thread title. If you want to pester them into quitting, I can't stop you, but I don't understand this (widespread! by many, many other editors! In fact, two I hold in very high esteem in that link! In fact, I've probably done this a lot myself!) desire to find something someone is doing wrong, and then pick at it until they get pissed off. Instead of saying "oh well, that didn't work, I'll go try to solve one of the 60,000,000 (conservatively) other problems WP has". This is replying to you, but it's not directed at you, because many more people seem to agree with you than agree with me. Wikipedia is really good at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is surprising, based on how it started out, with a philosophy of "i'll incrementally improve, and then someone else will incrementally improve somemore". I'm just not convinced a good faith, 100,000+ edit, productive editor needs to be pestered because they aren't perfect. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

it's not directed at you - I know that; no issues! But citation practices is a component of autopatrolled; so, perhaps not a random list of things :-) That said, I think productivity must not come at the cost of quality. For example most of the content at Margaret Frances Wheeler is not found in the book (w/o page numbers but p. 147-148) cited by Aciram. So, the cost of cleaning up is too huge — one needs to find out the page numbers, then see the portions which are sourced, then check if the unsourced parts can be sourced, and ... TrangaBellam (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Aciram has said on their talk page they have no objection to removing the autopatrolled flag, so I've done so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in Iran

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

---

Started talk discussion on the merits of a previous edit to a page. Was ignored, edit warred against, and the editor claimed that "consensus" had been established when there was zero discussion on talk and I had posted a talk discussion. Seeking arbitration on this issue, as the editor has a friend in administrating and clearly refused to debate normally. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:1AM. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be accurate if my comments were being replied to. They are not. It can't be one against many when the many refuse to debate any portion of the talk. You can read it if you so wish. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, local consensus supports that the era be changed to BCE. Ideally, LeidenMasterMES should not have changed the era (w/o local consensus per WP:ERA and MOS:RETAIN) but that ship has long-sailed and now, consensus favors BCE. I can see how this might seem to be unfair but there's nothing much to do. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If you might notice based on editing history, "local consensus" is a group of unrelated editors that suddenly appeared despite having zero history on this page. If these guys are in communication behind the scene, there's little that anybody can do to stop that. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:1AM: In a "one-against-many" dispute, it can happen that the many all have the same politics, religion, or maybe even work in the same place. They may even be colluding in secret. The problem is that for every "one-against-many" case where there is a group bias, there are at least a thousand cases where the one only thinks there is.

I will be blunt: no, they are not colluding and if you fail to drop the stick, you will be sanctioned. People often watchlist pages for spotting superficial disruption, vandalism, etc. even if they have no interest in the topic — perhaps LeidenMasterMES's edits past unopposed because unlike you, they did edit the content significantly. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as to that statement, that does not change the fact that my discussion has not been responded to as of yet. Just because several editors suddenly reverted a separate edit does not mean anybody has agreed on WP:ERA. You can look at the talk page yourself and note that I went out of the way to start a separate discussion unencumbered by the previous edit warring, and still was not responded to. There cannot be consensus when zero people have responded to this statement. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been responded to. See talk page. By the way this should be closed as there is a parallel discusion with Boomerang at ANI. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee:

Two months ago, in an unusual break from their standard procedures, the Ombuds Commission, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, allowed it to be publicly announced that they were investigating me. [11] This was how I found out I was being investigated by this body, they had not contacted me in any way. We were told they would have a result "soon". I contacted them to express my concern at this public announcement, but also to make it clear I was available to them if they had any questions. They replied with a fairly generic statement assuring me that the process would be fair. I accepted this and waited a month before contacting them again, simply to ask, since they chose to make a public announcement, if they could just give me even the vaguest idea of when "soon" was actually going to be. That was a month ago, and I have received no reply of any kind from them.

I'd like anyone reading this to consider how they would feel in my position.

I have not been told what evidence they are considering. I have not been told what I could have done to violate the access to nonpublic data policy,[12] which covers personally identifying information, such as real identities or locations of specific users discovered through the use of advanced permissions in or in the course of dealing with suppressible material using the oversight tool, or IP addresses revealed by use of the checkuser tool, It is an important rule and I am not actually aware of any accusation that reasonably explains how I might have violated it. The information I shared offsite was not PII at all. I understand that the committee nonetheless felt I breached their trust. I don't agree with the hardline stance they chose to take on this but I at least understand it. I don't understand what the Ombuds even have to investigate, or why it could possibly take this long to reach a conclusion. I suppose it is also possible that they have reached a conclusion and have simply not bothered to share it with me or anyone else, despite having taken the highly unusual step of allowing one of their investigations to be publicized.

I find it ironic that a decision was made to reveal something that is usually held in the absolute strictest confidence, in response to an allegation that I had revealed something that should have been held in confidence. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to at least be told what it is I am accused of, to be given a chance to respond to those accusations, and to be given at least the vaguest suggestion of a real timeframe for when the case may be closed.

Please ArbCom, the next time you know the ombuds are investigating someone don't ask them for a public announcement.

Please, Ombuds, the next time someone asks you to make such an announcement don't do it. And don't say you will have a result soon and then sit on it for two months.

I have followed what little is public about the commission's work for many years now, and it basically never does anything quickly. Why the rush to publicize this case, when clearly you were not close to a decision?

Optics aren't everything, but they do matter. Publicly naming and shaming me without even having the courtesy to tell me first that I was even being investigated, without explaining exactly what is being investigated, without asking me a single question, and without giving any actual honest estimate of when I can expect a result is very poor behavior. Please, do better. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(The Arbitration Committee has been notified about this message.)

I personally share the above-described lack of insight into what the Ombuds Commission currently does, why it does some things and why it does them the way it does.
As far as I see, the announcement link above is in response to a public WP:ARCA request asking for oversight and VRT permissions to be restored after they had been removed for private reasons. If the information about the Ombuds investigation had been sent to you privately instead, would you really have wanted to keep it private and been fine with a prohibition on publicly mentioning it? And expected the Committee to rely on this after the suspension?

Because from my point of view, there were two ways to deal with the information received from the Ombuds Commission: a) keep private or b) inform you publicly about it. The latter required additional permission I personally find reasonable to request in that situation.

Asked differently: Would you have preferred being silently investigated by the Ombuds Commission without even knowing about it? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear JSS didn't notify us of an open letter to us which I admit I find strange. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that if they were looking into your actions, they would inform you privately so you could at least attempt to explain yourself. So what I would have preferred is that. To find out there was an ongoing investigation and to be told it was nearly concluded before I even became aware of it was certainly not how I thought it worked, or how it should work.

And now it is two months later and I know no more than anyone else about what they are investigating and when they will have a result. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't think that Ombuds reaches out to people it's investigating. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else, likely the fact that Arbcom didn't tell him OS revocation was being considered. What happened here is bound to cause hurt that won't go away in a few months. I also think JSS has a point. Having someone in limbo with no attempt to communicate or update for this length of time is unfair to him. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was already aggrieved about that, but I accept the rejection of my attempt to have it amended. That's just it, I'm not interested in dwelling on it, I'd prefer to just move on but I feel like there's this threat at any moment I might be subject to even more serious sanctions without even being told why. That kind of treatment is usually reserved for the worst kind of trolls and long-term abusers, I never expected to find myself being the subject of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)