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	36	2	38
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	3	2	5
FfD	0	0	3	4	7
RfD	0	0	49	43	92
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (68 out of 7727 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Nemo (rapper) 2024-05-10 01:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case The Eras Tour 2024-05-10 01:48 2025-01-29 23:36 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: raise protection to ECP for duration to cut back on fan edits Daniel Case Kim Jae-joong 2024-05-09 23:16 2024-08-09 23:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Draft:Blue Dream Group 2 2024-05-09 18:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Draft:Blue Dream Group Ymblanter Draft:Blue Dream Group 2024-05-09 18:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ymblanter Template:CGNDB URL 2024-05-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hind's Hall 2024-05-09 11:46 indefinite edit,move oops Ymblanter Assembly theory 2024-05-09 01:47 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; previous protection level has not been sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dumraon Raj 2024-05-09 00:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA Daniel Quinlan On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians 2024-05-08 19:28 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jaffa riots 2024-05-08 04:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Russia–Ukraine relations 2024-05-08 03:05 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Rapunzel's Lantern Festival 2024-05-08 02:35 2024-05-15 02:35 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Dhadhor 2024-05-07 19:28 2024-06-07 19:28 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ponyo Background of the Rafah offensive 2024-05-07 18:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA enforcement Firefangledfeathers Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Robertsky Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: restore previous indef ECP Daniel Case Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C

Reporting @Juli Wolfe

Reporting this user @Juli Wolfe

Trying to delete articles that I've contributed to in bad faith. This user is disruptive and needs to be removed.

I donate to Wikipedia insane amounts of money and do not want to see users like this on the platform. Please delete and remove @Juli Wolfe Yfjr (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

First off, when coming to WP:AN you need to realize your own actions will be under scrutiny. Including where you called another editor a clown and tried to vandalize their user page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Philipnelson99 thank you for reverting back my talk page to normal. And thank you everyone for stepping in, This user @Yfjr has been using personal attacks towards me for no reason, and mentioning things like if I try and edit any articles that "he will have me removed from Wikipedia" saying things like that under my talk page. And if you take a look at my contributions I contribute very well and fairly to help make articles better and then this user creates this thread under the Administrators' noticeboard for zero reasons claiming that I am "trying to delete articles contributing to bad faith, and that I am being disruptive". Which you can see is clearly not true, my mission to to continue to to make meaningful contribution whereas this random user has no user page is, trying to say because of the use of their "claimed" donations they can enforce editors off the website, using personal attacks seen here calling me a clown, single handedly making edits adding certain images that are copyright violations under articles like Luca Schnetzler & Pudgy Pengins. It's safe to say that this new User @Yfjr is potentially a troll and needs to stop.

@JustarandomamericanALT @Phil Bridger @Schazjmd @Lepricavark @CambridgeBayWeather What should I do now with this thread noticeboard that the troll @Yfjr made under my name? Thanks guys, Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything further. It's clear that this was a frivolous report. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Obvious boomerang indef for incivility, given the diffs provided above. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) I have not looked into the matter, but I must say that the amount of money that you donate to the WMF (nobody donates anything except time to Wikipedia) is both unknowable and irrelevant to an editor's presence here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This report seems a bit exaggerated. Juli Wolfe nominated a single article for deletion, and Yfjr's only contribution to that article was adding an image. Yfjr's comments at the AfD and Juli Wolfe's talk page are overly aggressive. Schazjmd (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I had warned Yfjr about personal attacks prior to their most recent edit at the AfD and this report. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang indef of OP for trying to use their purported donations to influence these proceedings. Yfjr, your sense of entitlement is pathetic to those of us who have donated countless hours of our lives to this project, a far more meaningful contribution than you will ever make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The single edit you made to Luca Schnetzler was to add an image that was a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yfjr, I must say that I simply have came across the article for "Luca Schnetzler" that was newly made simply had false information in the career part of the article, all I did was correct it. Making edits to Wikipedia you must have notable articles cited for things placed. And you decided to Report me for being disruptive? Is quite I must say outlandish. And not to mention you called me a "clown"? For what? Following the rules and making Wikipedia a better place?@Yfjr Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You nominated an article for deletion because you “thought” that a fact is false, when it fact it was true.

It is shocking to see how many came to your support despite making my case very clear.

You have not done your research on Luca Schnetzler and made a false report and nominated the article to be deleted.

This should be punishable considering you never even took the time to review what you are reporting, thoroughly.

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community after seeing the few people who were quick to respond in such a haste and unfair matter.

I will no longer be donating to Wikipedia and will be reporting all the users who took action to reverse my reports which were made in good faith.

I’m passionate enough about Wikipedia to stand and defend articles I’m passionate about and contributed to.

you will not take that away from me.

You deserve to be banned for your lack of awareness and thorough research before nominating articles to be deleted @Juli Wolfe

You are a literal danger to this platform, I am the one speaking up against you. You are not allowed to take this and turn it against me. 2001:1970:4DA3:D300:0:0:0:7C56 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is just @Yfjr editing logged out... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community you aren't a part of this community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! you are still here?.. Thinking logging out would we wouldn't know it was you... Listen this person or whoever you are working for or even if it's you paying for press WILL NOT get you on Wikipedia so you can continue trying... You are going against Wikipedia's rules!! And I wont stand for that as to why I opened up a "discussion" to see if it's notable. Since you made things worse gonna make sure you don't get it & I can definitely speculate that you are associated with that said individual in CA/LA wherever you/he is... Plus you are trying to use the use of your purported donations to go against certain rules, you thinking you are entitled to is piteous to those of us who have donated countless hours of our to actually make this website a better place. Juli Wolfe (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, the hypocrisy is a little staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing felt off to me after viewing the interactions between Juli Wolfe and Yfjr. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support boomerang indef. The donations' joke tipped the balance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Hasn't this cryptospammer been blocked yet? Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• I blocked Yfjr indefinitely. If Yfjr hadn't attempted to vandalize someone's user page, I could see starting off with timed blocks or even warnings, but the totality is just a bit too much, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The OP target has been blocked for two weeks for socking. That said, the AfD has been NAC by an obviously involved participant, for incorrect reason. (Blocked for two weeks, not banned). The way I see it the close should be undone, and the sock vote stricken. I’d do this myself but I don’t think I’ve dug deep enough into it to be 100% sure, and I’m about to disappear for 3-4 days, so if I muck it up it’ll just make it harder to rectify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've reopened it. As you say they were involved and the nominator was not banned. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  A short block (two weeks) for socking to vote in the same AFD is extremely generous. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @78.26: The OP is Yfjr, not Juli Wolfe. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• @JayBeeEll: you are absolutely correct, I have rectified. Thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Boomerang and indef Rarely are they this simple/clean. Buffs (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is already indeffed. Did you mean someone else? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. Was concurring with it. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I'm beginning to think that this whole thing needs more eyes. Juli Wolfe's talk page access should probably be revoked since she's using it to pursue a battleground campaign against DIVINE, who merits some scrutiny as well for trying to close the Luca Schnetzler AfD despite being the article creator. Meanwhile, with Juli blocked for socking, Bhivuti45 has taken up the crusade by opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE and taking two of DIVINE's article creations to AfD (1, 2). Curiously, Bhivuti45 had not edited in two months prior to wading into the middle of this dispute. At this point, it's not clear which of these editors, if any, are acting in good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I havent checked up on Bhivuti45, but I'm pretty sure that none of the other protagonists are editing in good faith. The fact that Juli Wolfe has been blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't mean that Yfjr and DIVINE have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be parrying accusations of socking, meatpuppetry, and UPE back and forth. Maybe they are all guilty. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is honestly extremely worrying as there is a lot of missing context. Both articles are clearly notable and were instated at the same time.

The user @juli wolfe saw something in the article that she didn’t approve of.

then she nominated the article for deletion falsely.

this is what caused this whole ordeal.

editors should not be harassed whatsoever and these things need to be resolved more amicably. 199.7.157.86 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the article subjects are not "clearly" notable so there is no fault attached to nominating them for AfD, which is where things are usually resolved amicably. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You can bump up the article i don’t have any issue but as a creator of the article its my responsibility to defend them. If it weren’t notable or didn’t seem to be notable i would have not created those articles. But the act which i have been around and the mental pressure which i am handling without any wrongdoings is really not that good. I cannot agree on upe just because of someone’s personal assumptions again and again if i haven’t especially done UPE and yes i also don’t know what’s going on here and why this personal attack on me. DIVINE 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And about closing the AFD discussion: Yes maybe i did mistake there which i can agree on and two wikipedians told me about that i closed because the sock were block but i forgot to check the word where i was involved. I close that on good faith but another editor re-opened it which i don’t have any problem with. And about good faith i have contributed alot of my time to wikipedia while fighting with vandalism or reviewing new pages which i got award of too. But due to some dispute on ANI my NPR was revoked long back and due to that circumstances i asked my Rollback and PCR to be revoked. Thankyou if anyone need to know anything you can ping me now i will just be in peace with my personal life. Have a good day DIVINE 04:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE, every day I review dozens of AFDs and while I know it is not a good feeling to have an article you created nominated for a deletion discussion, I'd estimate that 95% of the time it is not personal. An editor stumbles upon an article that they don't believe meets the standards of sourcing demonstrating notability which is expected of main space articles. That other 5% is when an editor notices that there is a possible problem with an editor's page creations and does target their articles for review but that is not what happened here. I don't know anything about your "personal life" and why you have brought that up or your revoked permissions or why you think a discussion on two blocked editors is a personal attack on you. Editors were saying that you shouldn't have closed that AFD but you were not the subject of the discussion here. It's fine to defend an article you created in a deletion discussion but this AN discussion was about two other editors (and possibly some IPs) and I thought had reached a natural conclusion was going to be archived soon until your recent comments. In a roundabout way, you admit that the AFD closing wasn't a good idea and so, if I were you, I'd step away from this noticeboard and go back to your own editing routine. If you were seeking support from your fellow editors on your work, AN/ANI is the last place I'd go to find that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• DIVINE has been a paid editor since oh so long ago. This just looks like rival UPE farms fighting, if you ask me. One of the editors DIVINE was coordinating with once upon a time, Ozar77, was determined to belong to the Vivek.k.Verma farm. Which group DIVINE belongs to or if they belong to any group, I do not know. But they have created articles for Nepalese subjects, Indian subjects and Western subjects. Now, that can happen with actors and musicians, sure, but minor businesses and businesspeople? I see that they even tried their hand at declaring one of their clients. What a coincidence that the one editor I had been accusing of UPE for five years happened to get a paid job! The harassment of OP with socks and IPs sounds familiar. The last time DIVINE was trying to get me removed from Wikipedia[1], there was an off wiki campaign to find out my identity with assistance from journalists and Nepali Wikipedia admins.(still live:[2][3][4][5],[6]) If you noticed that one of those gentlemen was named Prakash Neupane, you might find these interesting:[7][8] You may also want to search for "Prakash Neupane" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  • There's surely enough here to CU compare Yfjr with DIVINE. You will note that, when I was taken to ANI back in 2019 by DIVINE, it was over my dispute with Ozar77, not DIVINE. Who knows why? Maybe they just forgot to switch accounts.[9] — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Doxing is a big NO! If you have any further evidence regarding socking, please post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE. Regards, Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    That's... not doxing. Sheesh. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Right, a failed doxing attempt[10][11]. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

    My mistake. I thought you were accusing Usedtobecool of doxing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lepricavark I am sorry you had this feeling but I am not here to carry a crusade against DIVINE or anyone else. I genuinely stumbled upon his AfD and shocked to see such a promotional article about a non-notable individual was created by an experienced editor like DIVINE. That was a red flag so I asked him to use AfC. Then Juli Wolfe pinged me on their talk page and provided me with the diffs. That grew my interest and I am pretty sure Yfjr is a sock and there may be more. So, far I only opened AfD for 2 of his articles that I think are not passing the criteria and opened a SPI case and informed about UPE on the Spam Talk page. If you find anything problematic then let me know. Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your first edit back after a 2-month absence is timestamped at 18:47 29 March. You voted in the Schnetlzer AfD at 18:53, having already concluded that it was a UPE creation. Within three minutes, you were draftifying the Pudgy Penguins article. Now I'm aware that coincidences do happen from time to time, but your claim that you just happened to stumble across those pages is stretching the limits of my AGF beyond the breaking point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot help with that, sorry because what I did so far based on my findings, align with the guidelines. You are free to report me if you think I acted in bad faith. However, I am finding it surprising that a frivolous thread was open by a seemingly sock @Yfjr (after 7 years of absence) and now what @Usedtobecool has posted with diffs, specially[12] and [13], they don't merits some scrutiny for closing a AfD but a lot more for possible violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use given the coordination with other UPE farms that are already blocked. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bhivuti has suddenly become very interested in AFD, participating in 36 different AFD discussions over the past 3 days despite never having participated in one before. (afd stats). Their participation speed indicates to me that they are highly unlikely to be interacting with sources, which is reflected in the bulk of their AFD comments being a couple words, saying that an article fails a guideline without saying how. [14] occurs 60 seconds after [15], [16] 69 seconds later, [17] 46 seconds after that, [18] 44 seconds later, followed by the Schnetzler AFD [19] 2 minutes and 34 seconds later. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I am interested in AfDs now but I do check the sources, not in all cases but in some cases when I feel it is necessary after looking at the article's contents, for instance[20] or [21] etc. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  This might be my last response here at AN per @Liz: suggestion while there’s many thing going on here and @Usedtobecool: have already concluded that there’s enough to CU me & YFJR or something whil SPI case is still pending against me and CU are checking. Usedtobecool filed SPI against me so long back, usedtobecool do have their own list of WP:RS Nepali sources which hasn’t been passed by anyone neither Wikiproject Nepal nor WP:RS (like that any editor from Nepal can come and claim the source to be eligible as most of them are in Nepali language). Still @Usedtobecool: is trying to connect with me somewhere or with someone per their personal assumption/opinion ( please listen to me again personal opinion) which can be seen here[22] while @UtherSRG: has responded them. While everyone is arguing here i want you all to check into deep about the previous contributions of Bhivuti45 and the articles they have created and the way they went missing after multiple users and administrators warn them to disclose their COI/UPE without any response & @GSS: might be watching out those problems mostly on Wikipedia. As @LEPRICAVARK: notified me on my talk page, i came here to response from my end. Also Bivhuti have filed case against me on wiki project Spam where i have provided link to their COI warnings before[23]. If administrators want to know something from me further please ping me or if I still feel suspicious to you: You can take any action which is preferable according to Wikipedia policy against me. Thankyou DIVINE 12:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  PS: Take “Arguing” as “Discussion/Discussing” DIVINE 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to leave it beacause i don't want too much mental presuree and my anxiety is not helping me DIVINE 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• So, what seems like the most likely explanation here is a turf war between at least two different UPE rings/purveyors. Overall, Bhivuti45's participation seems like a mostly WP:GOODHAND account which on March 29, 2024 decided to participate frantically at AfD and to chase after DIVINE. I am on the fence about a wikispace partial-block to head off the disruption at AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly was looking at Bhivutui45 earlier and thought the same thing. I think a partial block isn't a bad idea. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a compelling reason why an admin shouldn't just indef Bhivutui45? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  At first glance I was under the impression that some of the gnome/referencing work they had done in article space was ok, but on a closer look I'm seeing that the reference work looks questionable (e.g. Special:Diff/728934564) and that there are fairly clear UPE articles sprinkled throughout in their deleted contributions (Allegiant (finance services), Jesu Segun London, Emmessar Biotech & Nutrition Ltd, Byron Cole). Blocking indef as UPE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment

DIVINE (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)

Tulsi (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)

The oldest account I've identified for DIVINE is Dansong22 (talk · contribs · logs) ([24][25]). Dansong22 created an article for Arun Budhathoki[26]. Then, they created an article for The Applicant many times[27]. It was apparently an online magazine founded by Arun Budhathoki[28]. They stopped editing in July 2013, but they were still trying to protect the Arun Budhathoki article only weeks before[29]. They were evidently successful as the articles remained until 2019[30][31].

They came back with the DIVINE account, previously Azkord and Owlf, in June 2014 because they had found an actual paid-editing job: promoting Kenneth Beck (the deleted version)[32][33]. They created articles on Kenneth Beck[34] and CEO Connection[35], founded by Kenneth Beck[36]. Note that they're doing the same things previously attempted by CEOConnection (talk · contribs · logs), an obvious paid editor and SPA. On the same job were SPAs Salvatore.emery (talk · contribs · logs) and Radicaldoubt (talk · contribs · logs), around the same time and after. Xtools also lists CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention, CEO Connection Mid-Market Awards and CEO Connection Mid-Market 500, created within the same week. Next article that may be worth looking into is SkillBridge (deleted version), the last article they created that July before all but disappearing.

Ozar77 (talk · contribs · logs) appears on the scene in October 2016. They create Anna Note, which was "[t]he digital newspaper ... looked by its senior correspondents, Brabim Karki and Arun Budhathoki" (see en.everybodywiki(dot)com/Anna_Note). They then create, in order, Brabim Karki, the aforementioned senior correspondent, Rameshwor Thapa, employer of Karki and Budhathoki[37], Annapurna Media Network, the parent organisation, Kathmandu Tribune, a "digital newspaper" whose editor-in-chief is Arun Budhathoki (see now blacklisted kathmandutribune(dot)com/about/), Nepal Tribune Media, the organisation founded by Arun Budhathoki that owns Kathmandu Tribune, and Nepali Tribune the Nepali language version of Kathmandu Tribune if I remember correctly. In November 2019, they accept paid-editing job for the Vivek K Verma UPE farm and are promptly indeffed as a sock of theirs.

Gaurav456 (talk · contribs · logs) came to Wikipedia to write about Gaurav Adhikari and Y8.com. But of note is their persistence with Prakash Neupane, first created in May 2015 probably[38] and still live in draftspace, which is mentioned 15 times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. It's plausible that Prakash Neupane socks are a different case from Gaurav456 socks[39] but I will refer them as Gaurav456 anyway because it doesn't make a difference. Gaurav456 sock SeytX (talk · contribs · logs) nominates some of those Ozar77 articles for deletion in February 2018.[40][41][42][43][44] There are no related live edits by Ozar77 during this incident, but it does bring DIVINE out of semi-retirement. They respond to the AFD notification for Kathmandu Tribune on Ozar77's talk page within two minutes of it being posted[45]. They edit-war to remove an AFD template, characterising Nepali Tribune Media as independent media, calling its nomination an attack, and in general taking great personal offence at the suggestion that it should be deleted[46], and say the very same about Kathmandu Tribune[47]. Their participation in the AFDs was somehow worse[48][49]. See also the full thread at [[50]]. They are next seen in December 2018 in a hat-collecting run, doing anti-vandalism work and writing legitimate articles, which pays off spectacularly as they are by 9 January 2019, rollbacker, pending changes reviewer and new page reviewer, though not autopatrolled[51].

Meanwhile, Gaurav456 has given up on Prakash Neupane as their attempt to come clean and get unblocked fails and their sockpuppet investigation stops receiving new reports. Instead they're keeping their nose clean with NecessaryEdits (talk · contribs · logs)[52]. The February 2018 targeting of Arun Budhathoki articles by Gaurav456 starts to makes sense in December 2018; by all indications, Gaurav456 is out and DIVINE is in.[53] DIVINE has an advantage; they can get Prakash Neupane covered by Kathmandu Tribune. Prakash Neupane himself is an editor for Kathmandu Tribune now (see kathmandutribune(dot)com/author/prakash/]. DIVINE is still at it at Draft:Prakash Neupane. It's been created and deleted so many times in between, even I gave up at one point, though thankfully not Praxidicae.[54]

In June 2019, while I was still figuring things out, I found myself in opposition to DIVINE, having found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Tribune Media (2nd nomination) from watching deletion sorting for Nepal. On 6 June, Arun Budhathoki tweets attacking me(speaking from memory, the tweet is now_restricted) and DIVINE reports me to ANI the same day (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Account_compromised_and_User_Should_be_checked_clearly.). Prakash Neupane responds to the twitter conversation assuring that he will have Wikimedia Nepal find out and disclose my identity[55]. Evidently that didn't work out. There are some troubling aspects about how Nepalese Wikimedians, including those receiving salaries, grants and scholarships, operate. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1990 Nepalese revolution. But, I am focusing on Tulsi's conduct here, who on 7 June, the same day as that tweet from Neupane, meets him in person to take his pictures[56][57]. They'd done the same in the past[58] and do so again in the future[59] While Tulsi has gone on to add Neupane's pictures to ten Wikipedias that have his article, not missing even a stray userspace draft on enWP[60], DIVINE has tried to repay with Tulsi's very own article on the English Wikipedia[61]. Tulsi was caught doing UPE work, creating previously known UPE articles, advertising his Wikipedia services on social media and using the NPR right to exclusively pass articles from one UPE editor who's since been blocked. After he was caught, on initiative from enWP, his global sysop and global rollbacker PERMs were removed. However, he continues to edit here, under no restriction against, for example, participating in marginal AFDs or the project space, and he remains admin at Commons, meta, mediawiki, neWP and maiWP, and irl agent for WMF and WMF scholarship awardee.

DIVINEs interactions with other editors leave much to be desired; ANI and threats of ANI are constant.[62][63][64] And they continue to waste volunteer time with the likes of Sandip Bista (Mr. D), Paul Hernandez (musician), Sangita Swechcha[65], Scott Woodward (marketer) (we're starting to look silly with this one)[66], Luca Schnetzler and Pudgy Penguins. After I posted here earlier, I received a cryptic message from Bangkok[67], a city which has no conceivable reason to care about me except for the fact that Prakash Neupane goes/went to university there[68][69] (DIVINE has created Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, Ozar77 had created 2019 Bangkok bombings). Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI and AN are the options where we can go through. This is not your first attempt to link with me to that above gentleman in your own words and SPI has been closed. You requested that ANI to be closed fast and still you’re behind me after 4-5 years. DIVINE 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: just few days back you concluded me with YFJR now Tulsi & i request you to file SPI again it might work with your personal assumptions. Run Xtool and check the pages that i have created (in your own words it might be like i have COI or UPE) with them all? DIVINE 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In 2019, I tried without knowing much about how anything works. This time I've got the problem that much of the evidence is in deleted pages. DIVINE, I promise you, if nothing comes of this one, I will leave you alone, I might even leave Wikipedia. Twice in 5 years isn't too many to raise concerns about paid editing, I'm hoping. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: FYi: you are really good editor here in Wikipedia which Nepalese community needs and i request you not to leave Wikipedia and this is not any personal attack and you don’t have to leave me alone neither you have to favor me of anything here. Last year/two years back i was about to leave Wikipedia and still i can leave as i do have many works and many things with my own personal life where i am too much busy. I asked User:Primefac to block me and asked them can I start fresh and they said they cannot do anything later if i will face CU. Let me clarify Dansong isn’t me. So below i would state my personal opinion or debate as per your above personal opinion.

I am into the research field, and I never wanted or want to reveal my identity. Now, thanks to you, my path is clearer. You might know me as your professor, your boss, or someone you've disliked for a long time (none of which is me). Someone dragged me to SPI just because of voting to AFD, whether it was my AFD or previous AGD, both are one. You also voted on Mr. Gentleman's delete discussion, even though User:Suryabeej argued that I was Mr. Gentleman. Looking at your links above, Mr. Gentleman's Facebook profile indicates that he also studied at Harvard Medical School. If you received a cryptic message from Bangkok or Mars, I cannot help you with that. And what's the difference between Mr. Neupane, Mr. Budhathoki, and you? They discussed their own personal assumptions a few years back according to the aforementioned link provided by you, and now you're discussing them here on Wikipedia, mentioning their names multiple times. Why don't you email them to let them know they are being discussed here? Is Wikipedia/AN a public forum? And still, your reliable source list hasn't been approved by any of Wikiproject Nepal and WP:RS. In this whole conversation, what I can agree with you on is that yes, Wikipedia Nepal does have a gang, they have their own groups which they apply in their own communities, something I complained about before if you research in more depth. DIVINE 04:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE, none of your story explains anything in the evidence I presented above. But maybe it will convince others, because you should have been blocked in 2012, more so in 2013, and absolutely, definitely by 2014, yet you're still here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Look how you much rage you have against me i wasn’t even here in 2012 and i didn’t even knew what Wikipedia was. Review,revise your own texts above before you concluded me as SPI of YFJR now you’re providing many things which i don’t even know and i am just laughing here (which i can only do). I will rest leave it to admins and i would like to request @UtherSRG: please provide them with deleted materials for their in-depth research against me. And @Usedtobecool: please take time to check on User:Bibhuti too they also appeared like same as you appeared few years back if someone will check on your history. Hence i have requested admin to help you with your research here. If someone wants something please ping me thankyou. DIVINE 05:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in this. Please stop mentioning me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

There's something definitely going on with Prakash Neupane. I noticed in the 3rd AfD a respected editor voted keep in part because sources said Neupane had 2 million YouTube views. There is one song he did with others that has 1.4 million views but the links to his social media accounts go to accounts that no longer exist. Looking at his YouTube channel today, he has 46 subscribers and the video with the most views is only 1.5k. He says "This is the new channel of Prakash Neupane as the old channel got deleted". The only link to his other social media accounts listed, which are different from the ones in the song above, that works is Facebook. The others go to accounts that no longer exist. Also, his website in Draft:Prakash Neupane, which is a different address than the one used on his YouTube channel, does not work. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Man after reading all of this I can see how much of a problem @DIVINE on this space breaking guidelines and continuing to get away with it. And no administrators doing nothing about is, soon his day will come. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:AD42:7786:D3A0:9ED7 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I am your Mr. Gentelman and i am Prakash Neupane. Admin please take action against me. DIVINE 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@DIVINE I noticed you just now requested G7 deletion (since reverted) for Justin Jin (entrepreneur) but that was created by @Deondernemers: (will also leave them a note). Are you saying you are Deondernemers?

For those following (or trying to), see also WT:Administrators' noticeboard#I am Prakash Neupane. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No but there is huge UPE farm out of wikipedia they asked me to join them which i denied an i do have proof of it. I am Prakash Neupane but leat me clarify i have never used any additional account. DIVINE 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In light of the above, either DIVINE's account has been hacked, or they're a long-term self-promoting editor with possible UPE and sockpuppetry as well. Either way, an indefinite block is appropriate recourse, so I've done that. I have not closely investigated accusations against any other editors at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Rosguill. I have no idea what's going on here but I think this was a sensible call on your part. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I managed to edit-conflict with Ivanvector while applying the block; separately, Ivanvector ruled out the possibility of a compromised account, and also identified a salient legal and outing threat by DIVINE. So we're still in indef-land. Because the legal/outing block can easily be appealed with a simple disavowal, it bears mentioning that DIVINE's admission of being Prakash Neupane is tantamount to an admission of extensive amounts of undisclosed self-promotion, and likely collusion with UPE farms and/or less organized sockpuppetry, and that a successful unblock appeal must address all of these concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This also raises some serious questions about @Tulsi who clearly knows Prakash Neupane but has not yet responded. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the ANI filing that just keeps on giving apparently. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to just indefinitely blocking Tulsi for the essentially-unresolved UPE concerns, described on meta where they resulted in a loss of global rights, and at User_talk:Tulsi/Archive_2#Paid_editing where they were left hanging other than Barkeep49 following up on everything to remove advanced permissions here. Now, strictly speaking, no one has presented new evidence of UPE since then; the collaboration with Prakash to add new photos of him to wikipedia projects carrying an article of him is relatively tame as far as actual editing goes, even if it is evidence of incredibly poor judgment. But, given the past behavior and the wikiflu, I don't know whether this much benefit of the doubt is warranted. Even if we decide against blocking here, we should notify the various projects where he still holds advanced permissions once we come to a decision here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill I'm not opposed to this based on everything you just described and the above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd like to hear what @Barkeep49 thinks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to review too much information to say what I think. I do remember being quite upset at the time, which is why I took the actions I did around their NPR patrolling and their permissions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the history and ongoing concerns, I support blocking. Indef is not forever if they can make an convincing unblock request. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I definitely support blocking indefinitely and don’t change it. This guy has been creating paid articles for years thinking he was going to get away with it, and then being cocky about creating sock accounts and then making remarks like “I can literally get you banned off of Wikipedia”, And looking at his history he has many current paid articles that needs to be in the process of deletion because none of the articles there are reliable. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

His page curation log should have been entirely enough for an indef, as far as I am concerned. But we had divided concerns then, and no threads at AN/I. He also comes here in bursts. And other projects have no interest in doing anything about him. Even the WMF seems to be flying him off to their conferences still, so... rot from the head or something. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, I've blocked and opened a discussion on metawiki. Based on past experience with metawiki admin recalls, I expect that it may be beneficial to write a Signpost article about this to encourage participation, as the other RfC about other-project admins doing UPE currently hasn't received any participation other than from involved parties. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah @DIVINE has done so much unfaithful contributions to Wikipedia with doing undisclosed payments under the table making articles that have no reliable sources. His actions were so pathetic and glad that justice has been served for those that has been involved because I have been seeing everything these past days and no one should be accused of false wrongdoings. Great job on the administrators for the consistent effort for making this a better place for editors. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Just catching up with the twists and turns of this long discussion thread. And now I'm very depressed. But I do applaud the diligence of editors like Usedtobecool who somehow kept track of all of this misconduct that occurred over years of editing. I'm sorry for what you've had to go through. I've been doxxed (twice) and it's not an idle threat when it is directed at you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that happened to you, Liz! I feel like quitting even contemplating the possibility. And thank you, it did take me a lot of time; I rarely investigate and write up ANI reports so long (you can probably tell). I have been careful about my anonymity from the beginning, but of course there are no guarantees. It caused me irrational stress for a moment when they said they'd reported me to the Police, because in Nepal, they arrest first, investigate later. But I don't think WMF will betray me that easy; I hear good things, at least regarding this particular issue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt...

1. Contributions from an anonymous IP who suddenly jumps in to WP:AN smacks of someone who is blocked trying to inject their thoughts. Whether it is someone who is block evading stemming from actions prior mentioned in this section or from somewhere else, I'm basically going to discount those opinions, but I'll listen to anyone in good standing who agrees with those thoughts.
2. An SPI for DIVINE would be appropriate to see if there are problems elsewhere. I concur with the block as well based on the aforementioned notes; if nothing else, it is preventative and a break will not hurt things in the long run. Buffs (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree on both points. I am especially concerned about the IPs contributing to this conversation with little or no prior editing at all. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #87097 is open. For your consideration, DIVINE is requesting unblock on UTRS. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  In their first UTRS appeal which they pretty clearly did not write themselves, they mentioned that they emailed me. They did not. In their second one that's linked above they mention emailing an admin, that also wasn't me but I'm not sure what they meant, their English is not great. I have not corresponded with them off-wiki, anyway. I did not see evidence of socking when I checked yesterday, but checkuser cannot prove a negative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  He's said, he's reported me to the Police. So, that needs to be resolved. He needs to explain his relationship with Arun Budhathoki, his friends and businesses. He has claimed to be Prakash Neupane—who's borderline famous—and done a lot of things that may be unflattering, so he needs to get verified, or we risk BLP harm through impersonation. He's claimed to have received payments for AFD votes, so he needs to be topic banned from mainspace and AFDs. His threatening behaviour needs to be addressed. He needs to explain quid pro quo editing with Tulsi outlined above. He needs to make many COI/PAID disclosures. He's claimed he knows multiple other editors are UPEs, and has evidence of such. It would seem important to get that evidence from him, and not unblock him until we get proof for every accusation, or they remain aspersions and harassment. It would also be important to make sure he doesn't OUT anyone if unblocked and uses private channels. Why does he want to get unblocked? We didn't arrive to a block here from my evidence directly. He imploded before others had responded. Clearly, he wanted to quit then and was burning bridges on his way out. Has he decided within days that undisclosed paid editing is bad, and now he is a complete convert to our mission? If he starts writing more articles that look paid, what will we do, wait for definitive proof that he's been paid again? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I told him in a UTRS ticket to email any evidence of UPE to the PAID people. If someone could look and see if there are replies on the UTRS 87097 ticket that need attention, I'm off for the weekend. Or maybe someone could action the 87097. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments?

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

Per https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13444&sid=6a36c41186b953e95c1930d77476b218 and the ongoing discussion at WT:BLP; it looks like the OP of the thread at said talk page (or at least somebody with the same username and writing style, and the user later admitted it was him) made a thread over at the ol' 'ocracy in which he said he was "requesting eyes on a topic". Now, I'm not saying Wikipediocracy needs to be burned to the ground or whatever, but I really don't think people should be allowed to blatantly call in air support from other websites like this.

What the hell? Is this blockable? It doesn't seem quite clear to me what the official guidance is here. It's one thing for somebody to have an account on another website but it's another thing for them to do it openly, with the same username, and be asking people to come back them up in arguments. (I mean, if this is allowed, let me know, because it would make my life and my own wiki-arguing a lot easier, but my understanding is that it's not) jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly "and call in air support" and "be asking people to come back them up in arguments." are complete misrepresentations of what I posted on the forum. I opened the post with a neutral request saying “Hello everyone. I’m requesting eyes on a topic on the BLP noticeboard regarding Wikipedia publishing the home addresses of notable individuals, and concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them.” They may well have disagreed with my argument and not backed me up, because I never asked anyone to back me up.

At no point did I try to influence anyone, I just requested they have a look; and WP:CANVAS says “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way” and WP:MEAT says “Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate”.

Neither are these apply, as I neutrally asked for eyes on a BLP debate I opened, and didn’t try to influence anyone. There is nothing wrong with airing valid criticism of Wikipedia, and everything I have said on that site, I would also say on Wikipedia, so I have no shame in using the same username, in fact I think it’s more commendable to do so. Furthermore, in a later post, I applauded others editors response to their common-sense approach the issue I raised. I am using Wikipediocracy responsibly to give light to valid concerns I have with Wikipedia, and not using it in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook, you've made no fewer than 15 edits to your comments here. You'd do better to work on your comments using a tool outside of Wikipedia (such as a word processor) rather than endlessly editing your material here and making it very hard for anyone else to chime in. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think I’m done, I just don’t like being misrepresented, and painted to look like I act in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it's blatant canvassing. You posted your own POV to an non-neutral external site. I don't know how you can perceive that as a neutral request. Polyamorph (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) changed from non-neutral to external, see WP:STEALTH

What the heck would a 'neutral website' look like? Who would determine whether it was 'neutral' or not? Clearly, Wikipedia is in no position whatsoever to make such a determination - that would be absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual Wikipedia article for Wikipediocracy starts off with “Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia.”. The consensus on Wikipedia is that it’s just for criticism of Wikipedia, which is what I did when criticising the doxxing of notable individuals. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What the 'consensus on Wikipedia is' (whatever that is supposed to mean) is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is in no position to decide what is or isn't 'neutral' on external websites. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise to you and Black Kite for stating it like that - as you will see I struck the offending word. My point was only that it was blatant off-wiki canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said below, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean 'blatant off-wiki criticism'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see, I interpret the "request for eyes" as a blatant request for input. But YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My post was a criticism of Wikipedia, so I posted it in the appropriate location- a criticism of Wikipedia forum. How is this not the right place to post it? Black Kite said before “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I did it per WP:APPNOTE to post a notification in a centralised location to “draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion”. Which part says I can’t post my POV in the post? They would’ve clicked the link and seen it anyway? All the same, it wasn’t in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Per APPNOTE, the notification must be neutral. Including your POV is makes it non-neutral. APPNOTE also applies to on-wiki locations, it specifically mentions off-wiki communication as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

However, WP:STEALTH is only “strongly discouraged”, and not “disallowed”, as per “other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged”. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged. This means please don't do it. And please don't then argue semantics when you get challenged for doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

But also, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote above please don't then argue semantics. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral, I didn’t ask anyone to join in , I only asked them to look; and it contained what they would’ve seen if they clicked the link. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's hard to believe that you didn't think/hope some of them would take part. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite said below “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your story is changing by the minute. Polyamorph (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How so? I notified critics of Wikipedia to look at my criticism of Wikipedia, and didn’t ask them to join in. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire thread seems to be based on the dubious premise that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called. As anyone who has actually read the endless debates on Wikipediocracy will be aware, this notion is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, whilst WPO is a criticism site, that does not mean that there is not also constructive criticism, and indeed it has helped to highlight improvements that can be made to articles on a number of occasions (disclosure: I post there). Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The only premise is that there was off-wiki canvassing to a specific thread. The idea that it was not actually canvassing, and is in fact valid criticism, was only raised once AndyTheGrump mentioned it. I find that premise to be completely unbelievable. But as I said, YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I refuted that this was canvassing (as this was the initial accusation) first in my initial reply, and in the reply on the BLP talk page. The subtitle in the BLP talk page is “The creator of this thread seems to have opened a thread on Wikipediocracy to canvass people to this discussion” TheSpacebook (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree, which is why I joined. I refute all labels that this was canvassing, as WP:CANVASS says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus and that Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way and WP:MEAT says do not recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate TheSpacebook (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my above comment, which was alarmingly deleted by editor @Randy Kryn: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216704820&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1): Labelling this canvassing doesn’t apply here as the not everyone on Wikipediocracy share the same view on everything. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit unconvinced by the use of "non-neutral site" there. Would it have been any different if, for example, they had posted it to WP:BLP/N instead? I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted). We have long tolerated those types of things as long as the notification itself is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral and contained the text they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. Furthermore, in my post I requested EYES, I didn’t request FINGERS for anyone to actually join in the discussion. I just asked them to look at it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You think that making a BLPN thread titled "Doxxipedia: The Publication of Living People’s Private Home Addresses" [sic] would not have neutrality issues? Even if didn't, there is a difference: BLPN is a part of Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy is not. People who see a bunch of editors showing up somewhere all at the same time, if they were linked from somewhere onwiki, have the ability to go find where they came from, and see whether it is neutral. Here, not only was the notice done on an external site, it was done on an external site with no notice. And Wikipediocracy is not only an external blog, but also external blog that frequently publishes invective about BLP policies. I am not saying they are always wrong, but it seems to me basically impossible to argue that they are neutral. I agree with Cory Doctorow's opinions in re most all copyright issues, but I think we all know it would be a crock of BS for me to start an argument about NFCC and then go link it to his blog's comment section with the title "CopyrightTrollpedia: Hysteria Over Fair Use". Yes? jp×g🗯️ 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, the title was just used to be eye-catching. However, I think that Wikipedia should engage more with Wikipediocracy, and have some bridge- and make it generally more acceptable to use both (in good faith, which is what I’ve only ever used it for), to bridge the gap over between the sites and allow for dialogue so its not penalised on an Admin noticeboard. Wikipedia will only be made better if it allowed room for criticism. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy, and those who participate there, are under no obligation whatsoever to be 'neutral' by any particular definition - and certainly not by one coming from Wikipedia. Criticism isn't supposed to be 'neutral', whatever that is supposed to mean. It is, if it is any good, based around the principle that one ideally assesses whatever one is criticising first, and only then forms an opinion. If the opinion is that the subject one is criticising is a festering heap of ordure one should say so. Likewise, if one thinks that the subject being discussed is the most wonderful enterprise ever concocted by intelligent life, one should do the same. As for criticism of Wikipedia BLP policy on Wikipediocracy, I'd have to suggest that a great deal of it - almost certainly the majority - is focussed on the failure of the project to actually hold to the policy it proscribes. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd like to hear it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What is 'allowed at Wikipediocracy' is solely determined by those who run the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry -- I mean "are people allowed by Wikipedia to do this", obviously the jannies of another site can run it however they please. Like, "are people allowed to take nominate pics at FPC they took while drunk driving" -- well of course the car and the camera allow them to do this, that's not really the issue, the issue is whether we do. jp×g🗯️ 15:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking whether Wikipedia contributors should be permitted to criticise the project on external websites? I sincerely hope not. I didn't sign up to a democratic centralist organisation, or a religious cult, as far as I'm aware, and if I have, I'd like to know where this is laid down in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely you can see the difference between "posting on a website" and "posting on a website, and opening a thread on that website, to specifically draw attention to the thread on this one, that you also started, and also in both threads you are attempting to argue for a specific policy change"? jp×g🗯️ 17:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Simple question. If the posting in question had occurred on Wikipedia, rather than Wikipediocracy, would you still expect a new contributor to be blocked, rather than warned, for raising an obviously-valid concern over core WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if they had posted a "get a load of THESE dicks" thread to a part of Wikipedia that didn't show up in their contribs, and was at a different URL that wasn't linked to from here, populated almost entirely by outspoken critics of the BLP policy, this would seem to me like an unbelievably obvious open-and-shut example of canvassing. jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook is blocked for one week for canvassing by GeneralNotability, apparently as a regular admin action rather than a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked without discussion? While there is an ongoing discussion on this noticeboard? How exactly was this such an urgent matter that an immediate block was required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I speculate the blocking admin wasn't aware of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then how exactly did they become aware of the issue? This block stinks. Looking beyond some poor phraseology, unsurprising in someone new to Wikipedia, the essential point that TheSpacebook is making both on Wikipediocracy and here is that core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy isn't properly being adhered to. Blocking someone for that is unconscionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... That is clearly canvassing, its a valid block. Why are you taking this to 11 when everyone else was calm and reasonable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the block log the discussion in this thread is cited in the rationale. I'm not sure what "per" means in the rationale. Does it mean the block is intended to be a community action? DeCausa (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'taking it to 11', that would be ArbCom. Which might very well be appropriate if this can't be resolved any other way, since it appears that a contributor has been blocked for pointing out the way Wikipedia's own core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy has been given the run-around through creation of articles on people's homes. Blocking people for pointing out off-Wikipedia that policy hasn't been adhered to cannot possibly be in the interest of the project. Not under any circumstances. Never. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They weren't blocked for that, they were blocked for canvassing. By "11" I was more noting the hyperbole and battleground behavior, which continues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Started writing this earlier, before the block, etc. Hm. I was expecting something more sensational for WPO to be involved. IMO yes, talking about an ongoing on-wiki dispute on Wikipediocracy is bringing it to the attention of a group of people with some known beliefs/attitudes and thus against the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. But we have several long-time users who seem perfectly content to do so, and even to proxy for banned users who post there, so I'm not inclined to commence enforcing such rules with a relatively new user who probably didn't know better.

I haven't looked to see if anyone joined because of WPO (not that doing so would be easy to demonstrate), but if so, I'm more inclined to wag a finger at the group that should know better.

For Spacebook: WPO is where people go who find themselves aggrieved with this or that aspect of Wikipedia, and for those people I get it (if you have an axe to grind or venting to do, and you're not too far detached from reality, you'll probably get a sympathetic ear/encouragement, and people will lend a wiki-cynical hand to help you to contextualize your objections and perhaps event dig up personal information and mock the Wikipedians who were so very wrong at you), but at least wait until consensus forms against you.

Responding to Andy, that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called - for any venue someone considers to be canvassing, you will have members saying this. It is not required that everybody agree or everybody act to understand that there are a variety of well known biases inherent to the forum. I'd be curious to see what correlations there are between posts at WPO and its members' participation in relevant threads over time (that's a desire for someone else to do it, not expressing my own intentions, to be clear).

In this topic area in particular, from what I've seen WPO will generally err on the side of defending BLPs even where (or especially where) Wikipedia's BLP policy does not. Any sort of "get a load of this BLP-related BS on Wikipedia" seems likely to get some encouragement unless it's nonsense on its face -- and that's perhaps the closest I've ever come to giving WPO credit for something (even if being extra cautious on BLP also happens to provide an opportunity for moral highgrounding while simultaneously dunking on Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians). Of course, if the person is themselves a Wikipedian or associated in any way with Wikipedia, they are presumed incompetent/deleterious and their motives insidious, but I digress.

Now seeing the block, IMO it should be converted to a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That reads very much like a 'block for posting on Wikipediocracy' rationale. I don't believe for one minute that if the same 'canvassing' comments had been posted somewhere on Wikipedia itself the end result would have been anything more than a warning. Not for a new user, with an obviously-valid concern regarding core Wikipedia policy regarding WP:BLP privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

...? I said this twice, more or less, in the comment you're replying to, but I did add one of those after-the-fact, so to be unambiguous: I'm in favor of a warning for Spacebook and not a block. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I'd missed that. I was getting edit-conflicts, and may have misread, or misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook has not requested an unblock, I assume that this block would be lifted shorty after they explained that they understood what happened and how to proceed. Blocks are to prevent ongoing issues, not to punish. I think in many ways this sort of block *is* "a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". " I would note that after joining wikipedia this editor made a beeline for the most controversial BLP issues of the day, Catherine, Princess of Wales like a moth to a flame and them made hundreds and hundreds of edits to the topic and related pages... A suggestion for an unblock would be to have them stay away from BLP until they find their feet and understand their way around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So when are we going to clear out Discord etc? If youse want to clear out the Augean stables, 'off-wiki canvassing' goes a fuck sight further than some public noughties-styled bulletin board. ——Serial Number 54129 17:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hush. Do not state the blindingly obvious. If they can't see it, it isn't happening. And everything is wonderful in Wikipedia-land once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think myself, and all of the moderators of the Wikipedia Discord (of which I am not one), would love to be pointed towards instances of canvassing there so that it can be quashed (if such examples exist). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This comments assumes a lot without actual history to back it up. Speaking from experience, I rarely, if ever, see canvassing occurring in the public channels on the Wikipedia Discord server. When it does, we're usually pretty quick to tell a user that it's not allowed. At which point, the user(s) usually delete the link they shared or a moderator removes it and gives a further talking to or ban if necessary. If you think canvassing is occurring on Discord then please do report it to the moderators. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not a moderator on the Discord, but of all the complaints I can imagine about it, "the mods aren't strict enough about shutting down conversations that seem improprietous" is not one of them. Certainly, I have not seen any "fuck sight furthers". jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Given the current nonsense that's going on with ARBPIA and allowing external anonymous POV sources to post in arbitration, imagine my surprise that an Arbitator has blocked this person (and another Arb is involved in the block) for, er, posting externally. Oh, that would be ... no surprise at all. Disgraceful. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  On the face it of it, a one week block for that mildly non-neutral CANVASS at WPO by a newbie seems quite harsh. I suspect it's more to do with their WP:IDHT silly wikilawyering defence of the canvassing in this thread. Only GeneralNotability can say. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it would be good to hear from them, since a block notice of "per this thread" doesn't exactly tell us their thought processes (and why a fairly neutral posting on an external site deserves a block, whereas we don't often block people for posting on-wiki canvassing unless it's particularly egregious). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see from User_talk:GeneralNotability that they don't feel they need to actually bother to post to this thread. Strange one, though ... their first edit or admin action on Wikipedia for 6 days, makes you wonder how they found out about this issue, doesn't it? Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: 10 quid says... reading threads on WPO  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  which would be truly ironic :) Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Having voted yes in General Notability's RFA, I would ask them to consider whether the effect of this block is not more likely to be that folks register at WPO under untraceable pseudonyms, rather than being upfront about who they are. Also I'd thought "more eyes" was Wikipedia-speak for "look at this"... Perhaps the understanding here is that it's a hidden homonym for "Moorize" calling Saracens everywhere to a holy, civilizing action (removing personal addresses from BLP)? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now see from GN's talk page that I was wrong - the block was purely for the WPO canvass and nothing to do with the user's poor response in this thread. Curious. Actually, really strange. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because I'm not talking doesn't mean I'm not listening. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Once I hear from GeneralNotability, to make sure I didn't miss anything important, I plan to unblock. Blocking for a week when it appears from this discussion to be a grey area is unhelpful. So I'd suggest re-focusing away from whether it was a good block or not, and back to whether we want to clarify whether this is OK or not OK in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've unblocked (this was possibly warning-worthy, but not block-worthy), so now they can participate in this discussion again. I am not saying they did right or wrong, I'm saying a block wasn't the answer. Also, they've committed to not revising so much text (to limit the number of edit conflicts for others). Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. As I said in my block review comment, notifying a centralised place where editors would be interested in the discussion is acceptable under WP:CANVAS. Wikipediocracy is not a monolith and has a wide range of differing opinions. However they are critical of Wikipedia, so a notification that I’ve critiqued Wikipedia is an appropriate place for it to be. I copied my original post to the forum, however they would’ve seen the post anyway if they clicked the link. I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers. I didn’t tell anyone to join in the discussion. I still think a dialogue should be made between the two sites to allow for Wikipedia to improve, and not a heavy handed approach whenever Wikipediocracy gets mentioned. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think you should have been blocked and am glad that you are unblocked i think you should be reblocked if you maintain this nonsense. "I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers". Stop the ridiculous pseudo-pedantry - there's no difference, but that's not a problem. Fact is there is nothing wrong with requesting fingers anyway, so long as you do it neutrally. "concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them" is what you needed to have left out. You should acknowledge that you made the (minorish) error of not doing this neutrally and move on. if you don't you should be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Valid. I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• The whole "we don't talk about Wikipedia except on Wikipedia" thing was supposed to have died back in the days of WP:ATTACKSITES. As I pointed out back then, it is unreasonable to expect outside criticism to kowtow to WP regulations, but it's conspicuously perverse to think that people making such criticisms aren't going to point at specific discussions. How could they not do so? I would say that the "requesting eyes" phrase invited a certain reading by the suspicious, but again, how could it not be reasonable on such a site to say, "take a look at this, and here's my opinion"? Looking at the WP discussion in question, I see no sign that any of the WPO regulars have been participants, anyway. I think the anti-canvassing policy is being misconstrued here, and I will also note that this is far from the first such discussion which has been pointed out on WPO, and yet nobody is regularly blocking its known members. There seems to be an element of newbie-biting to this, by the same token. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it could be reasonable to do that, in the hypothetical situation you made up -- I maintain that it's not reasonable to just make a thread there specifically about a talk page discussion you just started, and then express your opinions at length. I mean, do you pledge to support me at AN if I go over the next time I'm getting my ass beat at an RfC amd open a thread called "[inclusionists/deletionists/FACers/anti-FACers/etc]s trying to mess everything up again"?

  (Parenthetical note in re the regulars not getting owned for this: first of all, I never see them do anything this egregious, and second of all, they do get owned, have you forgotten already the extremely dramatic defrocking of Beeblebrox?) jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the two are comparable. I've been an admin here for 17 years and I've posted at WPO for a decade, yet the number of times I've ended up at a discussion purely because of WPO I could probably count on the fingers of one hand (maybe two at a push). And of course, many of the regulars at WPO don't (or can't) post here anyway, so I'm unconvinced that trying canvassing there would be particularly useful anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like blatant canvassing to me. The norm is to post stuff like that on-wiki, to article talk pages or noticeboards, and without commentary. I use the {{Please see}} template for this. Quite a few words have been typed about this, when all we really need to hear is TheSpacebook saying "I'm sorry, I won't do this again". Which really should have been in their unblock request. Instead, an unblock request that ended in Blocking me suppresses criticism in an authoritarian fashion, as a ‘warning not to step out line again’. was accepted. I thought I knew where the canvassing red line was, but perhaps not. I will watch this thread and re-calibrate based on its outcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve acknowledged it here: I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. I won’t do that again. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's ironic that you chose that forum to raise doxing concerns when they just doxed the guy who blocked you. By my count that's three doxed arbs in the last few months, plus a fourth who had his photo posted and appearance made fun of. But tell me again how you went there to raise privacy concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any manner in which this isn't obvious canvassing and with a non-neutral notification to book. Specifically notifying a group well known for harassment of Wikipedia editors, doxing, and other such activities. It's not worth it to even bother at this point in interacting with the people over there, defenders by participants here besides. I tried a decade ago and then realized that the terrible people there, many community banned and serial socking types, exist only to try and make Wikipedia worse and to harm any editors they dislike, particularly if they can manage to dox them and cause real life harm as well. Silverseren^C 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• (ec) A couple of quick notes:
  • it is my understanding that Beeblebrox was not removed for using Wikipediocracy per se, but for saying something that other arbitrators felt was inappropriate.
  • According to a poll at Wikipediocracy, most users there do in fact have a unblocked Wikipedia account. This is self-reporting of course, but perhaps food for thought.
  • At any given time there are usually more guests on the website than logged-in users. I know I used it before I joined to keep track of events in the Grabowski arbitration.

Apart from Wikipediocracy though, I think the canvassing policy could use some clarification. I was recently accused of canvassing for notifying another editor of an ANI about a Portuguese speaker because we are trying to enlist the help of Portuguese speakers. The accusation went nowhere, but I can't say at this moment that I know where the line is, so all the more reason not to block a new user over it. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think:

• It's OK to post a neutral notice of the discussion at Wikipediocracy.
  • I don't recommend it, however -- it's probably not worth the ensuing aggravation.
• It's OK to discuss the issue at Wikipediocracy if one wants to.
  • Like editors here, there are a wide range of personalities participating at Wikipediocracy, some good, some bad.
  • A visitor can sort through the chaff and read some interesting insights there.
  • Regardless about what our official rules may currently say about editor behavior offsite, expect to be held accountable in the Wikipedia court of public opinion for comments made there that would cross a line here.
• It's a mistake to combine a notice with an opinion - that's canvassing.
• It can be expected that readers at Wikipediocracy will skew towards BLP privacy concerns, so one might try to make a case that's forum-shopping even if posting a neutral notice there.
  • Then again, I think the same could be said about the participants at WP:BLPN.
• A tactical error: TheSpacebook argued too much for their own good here. Sometimes you just make your case and leave it to others to have the last word. A bone can get gnawed an awfully long time here.
• The canvassing violation was mild and the editor pretty new. I'm glad this editor is unblocked now.
• Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Genuine question, I haven’t seen the nature of the discussion you are linking to so I don’t know its importance, but how is Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important. not WP:CANVASSING? TheSpacebook (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Two answers:

1. It's hard to say for sure it's not because WP:CANVASSING is vague and somewhat vibes based.

2. But you can usually get a sense of the vibes by the chart at WP:INAPPNOTE.

Sorry this isn't more helpful, I agree that there should be clearer guidelines here. Loki (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the key difference is summarized best in this quote from A.B. "It's a mistake to combine a notice with an opinion - that's canvassing." Note that while A.B. said that the discussion was going on and encouraged participation you wouldn't be able to guess their opinion in that discussion from their comment here. If A.B. had instead said Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important that you support the proposal. that would be canvassing. This is also not a forum where people would be predisposed to feel a sort of way about the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t saying it’s important an opinion though? It’s the same as saying I think it’s important, and the phrase that was deemed objectionable in my case was concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them. At no point did I say concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them, so it’s important you support me. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If it conveys an opinion about the outcome of the discussion which way does "its important" suggest you vote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. That makes perfect sense, thank you for clarifying. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't scientific but my own litmus test for canvassing are these questions: "Can I tell which way this person wants the discussion they're linking to to go from the notice," "Does this venue/forum/page seem like it would primarily frequented by people biased one way or the other," and "Is the scope of the notification reasonable?" (this last one is the hard one and builds off of the second one... For example placing notifications at WikiProject:Israel and WikiProject:MilitaryHistory but not WikiProject:Palestine for a discussion about the ongoing war in Gaza) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my example does not involve Wikipediocracy (although I am a member there). Just me notifying one other editor on their talk page of an ANI discussion for which I considered them an interested party. I think clarification would be good. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I referred to a discussion at WP:BPLN above. I was wrong; the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses. My apologies, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Genuine question again, how is saying Everybody needs to go participate in the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses discussion now. It's important. not WP:CANVASSING, when you’re specifically telling people to participate? TheSpacebook (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's what WP:CANVASSING says:

"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

I did not try to influence the discussion in a particular way. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Like others, I am surprised this is considered a grey area. WP:CANVASS is about soliciting opinions on-wiki: there is a list of appropriate locations given in WP:APPNOTE. Posting off-wiki is (was?) an obvious red line, be it on Wikipediocracy, Reddit, Twitter, or some other site. It would be an issue even if a third party posted it, let alone the initiating editor. Add to that, even on-wiki, posting a request for input titled "Doxxipedia" is obviously not a neutral request, and this is already explicit in guidelines: "neutrally worded with a neutral title". Canvassing off-wiki should receive a very strong warning at the least, and if "is strongly discouraged" (and that for locations which are intended to be areas where just Wikipedia editors communicate) is somehow unclear or grey, it should be stated more plainly. CMD (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

While there is administrator attention on this editor's arguments and edits

May I request an administrator to revert the move of the article currently at AfD here from the street address at which it was created to its current privacy-violating title? The move was made during the AfD here by Spacebook; the AfD has been unbroken, but I believe the move created a BLP emergency by linking the occupants with the address. It's the new title that I think should be deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

May I just clarify again that I moved the page, as WP:BLPPRIVACY states clearly that articles should not include postal addresses… If you see personal information such as… addresses etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it, because the article for both of the musicians previously read (which I have since removed the address) the couple bought [redacted the actual address], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million. and linked to the property (which was also titled with the address). Furthermore, whilst the article had the address as the title, the body of the article had already named the musicians as the residents (not just the owners, they were named as the residents), saying The house was sold in May 2023 to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, establishing a new record for the most expensive residence sold in California. So with the notable residents named in the article, it is in fact the street address title that you wish to title the article that is the policy-violating one, as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I have also requested oversight for this address to be removed from all page history versions etc. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to Primefac for reverting the move, deleting the new title, and re-fixing the AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Primefac for your fast response to the oversight emails I sent. It is greatly appreciated. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy <redacted>

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

---

Follow-up question based on the WPO thread started by TheSpacebook titled "Burning of the Space Book: Blocked for "canvassing" for notifying Wikipediocracy about a BLP topic I opened", where some guy did this and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Making a clarifying note, in light of TheSpacebook editing my comment and the section header(?) -- TheSpacebook did not explicitly quote the post doxing their blocking admin with a clapping emoji -- the dox post was simply (perhaps through a wild and unexplainable coincidence in no way related to them opening the thread to complain about them) the post two posts up the thread from TheSpacebook's clapping emoji. jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re still suggesting I implicitly doxxed someone. As I’ve said I’m against all forms of doxxing, on Wikipedia and on Wikipediocray. This is the sole reason why I suggested the BLP policy change to specifically omit the exact location data of notable individuals homes. I’m against Wikipedia doxxing notable figures and I’m against Wikipediocracy doxxing Wikipedians. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You made that post the morning after I opened this section, at the direct suggestion of somebody posting in it; prior to it being explicitly noted on AN that you had opened and participated in this thread, your reaction to seeing the dox post was (...?) jp×g🗯️ 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

At no point did I give the assistance for doxxing. I have not engaged with any doxxing, and I have not encouraged it. I am not responsible for others that do, and I have not reacted to any doxxing with a “clapping emoji”. I applauded the message that said I was unblocked, as I welcomed the decision made by the admin that unblocked me. I also gave that admin a barnstar to say thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I've noted in many threads before about WPO, many of the editors involved there (that aren't community banned/sockpuppet masters/ect) are admins here. And use that to back themselves up and prevent any action taken against the doxing/outing/harassment done by the rest over there. Collaborators to said harassment, one could say, but they get mad and accuse one of violating civility for pointing out their willing involvement with those trying to bring IRL harm to Wikipedia editors. Silverseren^C 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook, two things. First: please feel free to repress the need to respond to everything. Second, for the love of God STOP THIS. If you can NOT get your comment right the first time, use the Preview button and copyedit/proofread/whatever. And sheesh, you had to throw in another little bit? Stop. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again. I’m responding to things that are about me or address me though. I said I’d stop editing my comments, but I am being blamed for engaging in doxxing, and it’s been alleged that I responded with a “clapping emoji” to a doxx, when I applauded the decision by an admin to unblock me, and also thanked them personally on their talk page. (Comment written and proofread in my notes app). TheSpacebook (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m responding to things that are about me or address me though.

That is not a reason to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a post from a user, that also hasn’t engaged in doxxing, saying Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook; and me replying with a clapping emoji as I welcome the decision, doxxing? Furthermore, saying assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them borders extremely close to a libellous statement, as I did not give any assistance to doxxing. I am not the administrator or owner to that site, so I can’t control what is posted on it. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading this forum and not making things up such as: assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them and where some guy [doxxed an admin] and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji. I’ll say it again, I responded with a clapping emoji to a post saying Floquenbeamp unblocked TheSpacebook, which isn’t me replying with a clapping emoji to someone doxxing. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so you created the thread to "get eyes on" the blocking admin, then some guy doxed them, then two posts after he did that, your engagement with the thread was to post a clapping emoticon.

I feel like "do not start threads to harass the blocking admin and then keep participating in them with approving gusto after a guy doxes them" is a pretty low bar, and you are not even willing to do this. jp×g🗯️ 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear misrepresentation. I didn’t start the thread to harass the blocking admin, at no point did I mention their name. I started the thread to highlight that I was blocked for one whole week before the discussion had ended, which I was still debating on whether I had broken any rules. I don’t get involved with doxxing, so it had nothing to do with me. Your responses missed the context, so I’ll say it for a third time, I responded with a clapping emoji to a post saying Floquenbeamp unblocked TheSpacebook, which isn’t me replying with a clapping emoji to someone doxxing. To make it clear, I’m not involved with any doxxing, and have not encouraged or engaged with any doxxing. I’m not the site admin or the owner, so I can’t control what others post; so I have ignored all the doxxing (the only thing I can do). TheSpacebook (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please may I also make the kind request that you stop blaming me for the actions of others? I feel as though I am being scapegoated here and being deemed responsible for the content posted on a website that I am not an administrator for and don’t own. Content of which that I haven’t engaged with and have ignored- as that’s the only thing I am able to do within my power. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly were not to blame for the actions of others. But you did open the thread. You would never have been blocked if you'd simply acknowledged the error you made in the first place and committed to not doing it again, instead your decided to argue. I don't agree with the block but part of being a responsible wikipedian is that you own your mistakes. You are responsible also for the second thread that you opened on WPO which resulted in some considerable nastiness. There is another option open to you, other than ignoring, and that is challenging the behaviour and making it abundantly clear it is not acceptable. As the initiator of the thread I would suggest that responsibility falls on you more than anyone else. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did start the second thread and you’re correct that I could have also challenged the behaviour. Let me make clear again, the main point of contention was the block and most people, yourself included, disagree with it and/or its length. Also, I am clearly against doxxing, as per the genesis of this issue being about notable figures being having their postal addresses on their Wikipedia articles. However, you started with You clearly were not to blame for the actions of others. but ended it with As the initiator of the thread I would suggest that responsibility falls on you more than anyone else. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the responsibility to challenge the behaviour falls on you more than anyone else, since you initiated the thread. I see we're going to go around in circles again though. Please just accept the advice and try to take responsibility for your own actions. As I've already inferred, if you'd done this previously, there would have been no drama, no block, no doxxing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve taken your advice on board and I’ve condemned the doxxing in a post on the forum. Thank you for your advice. The thread has since been made private, but I said As the creator of this thread, I must come on here and say that I’m against all forms of doxxing, on Wikipedia and on Wikipediocray. This is the sole reason why I suggested the BLP policy change to specifically omit the exact location data of notable individuals homes. I’m against Wikipedia doxxing notable figures and I’m against Wikipediocracy doxxing Wikipedians. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• In the discussion on TheSpacebook's talk page, the following was said by @Newyorkbrad: As reflected in the current AN thread, how our anti-canvassing policy applies to off-wiki postings about on-wiki policy discussions is by no means clear or agreed-upon. Vagueness on that point is IMHO a more serious problem than anything concerning any individual editor or incident, so I think we ought to start a discussion on WP:CANVASS to make it unambiguous. --Aquillion (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A large piece of the friction caused here are because of how vague it is. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)...Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner...Contacting users off-wiki", how should this be adjusted to make it more clear? CMD (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I welcome that addition to the policy. But I would say something more clear like a notification that presents an opinion which takes one side of the argument, or something similar which minimises the room for interpretation. TheSpacebook (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not an addition, that is part of the existing guideline at WP:CANVASS. CMD (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I know this is not entirely related to the topic, but I'm ever so disappointed to see that several prominent members and administrators here are willing to participate in a forum that has doxxed several of our editors on a misguided crusade for "accountability". This is not the first time this has happened and won't be the last. While the doxxing itself is done by people from outside the Wikipedia community, participation there feels like tacit support. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @Isabelle Belato. I was not aware that this particular website was still a thing, and am revolted at the thought of Wikipedians in good standing coordinating on-wiki business there (or at any other offwiki site). Sandstein 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've been uncomfortable with our own admins supporting a forum that allows such behavior for years. Yet, we're still here and they're still doing it. It's time for them to decide if that kind of appearance of impropriety is enough to either leave WPO or abandon their bit here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why do we need to be naming the website, thread, and author of the doxxing? It's bad enough that it happens, but the thing deserves less visibility, and giving its exact location is the complete opposite of that. Canvassing or whatever, there's a victim here, and it wouldn't hurt some of you to think of how that person might feel behind the screen. Giraffer (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  We should just keep letting editors do this, and there should be no consequence for it, and we should just never mention when it happens because it's extremely cool and normal? jp×g🗯️ 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've redacted the false accusation made in the thread title. Going forward, I will consider blocking anyone, admins/OPs included, who reinstates a false accusation of doxxing. Several editors above have shown that this did not happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  The original post of this section also ends with a false accusation, I’d also appreciate if that could be redacted too, but granted it makes no sense now as the subtitle being redacted leaves it referencing nothing. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I can stuff all the toothpaste back in the tube. Editing the thread title was, to be honest, symbolic more than it was practical. I'll assume JPxG will eventually, on reflection, publicly withdraw the accusation, as would befit someone with admin privileges. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the story here is: "I didn't endorse the doxing, I just went to the doxing website and opened a thread to complain about an admin blocking me, then somebody doxed him, then I expressed my gratitude at a different thing, then I was asked on the admin's noticeboard to justify this, and then after some prodding I made a post denouncing the dox post, then the admin resigned from the arbitration committee, although I maintain that I was in the right to open that thread, and I bear no responsibility for it, and I am 'against' the doxing in some nebulous way, but also maybe I will just go ahead and open more threads about other editors who piss me off in the future".

  Well, okay.

  I don't know how these things work, since I am not a longtime administrator who remembers the convoluted Silmarillion-like lore of Wikipediocracy (this JPxG fool doesn't even know that Féanor gave some guy from WR a bad TBAN in 2008 which means that some other guy on WPO doxing arbs in 2024 is actually a hero because British Mandatory Wikipediocracy's 1948 borders actually included AN alongside Crimea). That notwithstanding, I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most of this is ridiculous babble, but the heart of it is: if you don't understand how something works, it seems fairly stupid to make serious accusations based on that misunderstanding, and then ignore comments from people who do understand it. I hope this is an aberration; i don't want you as an admin if this is your standard MO. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be more direct, then: do you think it is a "false accusation" [sic] (i.e. rather than an inherent ambiguity of the English language, or a potential alternate interpretation of my claim, etc) to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" [sic] as "TheSpacebook's reaction" [sic] to the post?

  I have no problem amending a comment to give additional precision regarding a statement I made, but I do have a problem with being accused of deliberately lying and demanded to retract a true statement because it sounds similar to a false one. jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's a fact that Spacebook's post was not reacting to the the post two previous to it. I am looking at the thread right now and Spacebook quotes the post that they are actually reacting to - which is five posts previous, and is simply a link to Floquenbeam unblocking them. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yup. We don't always realize it but we all know how this works because we've all been there: you scroll through a thread, you read something, you hit "reply" and reply to it, your reply appears at the bottom, but you haven't yet seen what is below the post you're reading -- between the post you replied to and your reply. Then when you keep reading, you realize your reply comes after something else and now it looks bad in context. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’m only just reading this, but thank you for attesting. I’ll post less in this thread from now on TheSpacebook (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  That notwithstanding, I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post. what utter nonsense. The genesis of this issue is that I’m against doxxing and I want the policy to change. I reacted to the admin unblocking me, and also gave them a barnstar for doing so. THIS is a clear false accusation. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't stop posting so much, somebody is probably going to block you again. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there was internal dissension at Wikipediocracy before they “took the thread private” (requiring registration to read). —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG with there being an internal dissension of the doxxing, how can you argue that me relying to a post that said said “Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook” with an applause emoji, was me reacting to the doxxing? TheSpacebook (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Stop. Anyone who can see the thread can see exactly what happened (as I've posted above), there's no need to keep repeating it. I'd take a break from this thread if I were you. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I did open up a topic on the AN Incident page due do the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me. But you’re right, there’s no need to keep repeating here if everyone can just read it for themselves. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Are people allowed to … <shortened>

Shortened by Floquenbeam. This heading was formerly Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy in which, two posts after some separate unrelated Wikipediocracy user, who is not them, and is instead a different person, doxes the blocking administrator, they post a post, in such a manner as does not necessarily entail approval or direct response, consisting of a clapping emoji, formatted as a reply to a different post in the thread, but nonetheless making the casual implication (not the strict definition of implication as employed in formal logic) that they, the user who started the thread, did not see fit to comment on the post doxing the administrator? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Revised section title per feedback, in a way that clarifies with precision and hopefully does not generate further misunderstanding.

Follow-up question based on the WPO thread started by TheSpacebook titled "Burning of the Space Book: Blocked for "canvassing" for notifying Wikipediocracy about a BLP topic I opened", where some guy, who is not TheSpacebook, and is a separate non-TheSpacebook person, whose name and identity are separate from TheSpacebook, did this, and then two posts later, TheSpacebook continued to participate in the thread they created, in this case by making a post (again, mot formatted directly as a response to the dox post) consisting of a clapping emoticon. jp×g🗯️ 21:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Self rv (and you have my permission to rv my post with it). DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seriously -- in an offsite thread where some guy is doxing arbs and explicitly bragging about doing so as an intimidation tactic, what degree of friendly participation should somebody be able to have in that thread and remain a Wikipedia editor in good standing?

Is it permissible for this person to make a bare minimum form-letter denunciation of the specific doxing post, and then retain the prerogative to keep hanging out there and making threads to round up a posse whenever they decide it's really important to win an onwiki argument?

Did you read the thread? I was not the biggest fan of GN's arbitrational jurisprudence, but this is utterly absurd and gobsmacking. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have said something more empathetic than "seriously" - which was mainly from shock. But this is not the way to go. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That header is really unhelpful and just seems to pour petrol on the flames. Please drop the stick.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: When I made the thread about the WPO user doxing the arbitrator, I was asked to clarify the initial header multiple times, asked to amend my original post, strike the original post, add a supplement to the original post, after I did that an AN/I thread was opened to demand I retract my statement, and I was threatened with a block. I was specifically requested, multiple times, to not raise the issue without including this supplementary information about who made the post and what the user's precise extent of participation was in the thread. jp×g🗯️ 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your amendment to the title effectively repeats your original allegation - and it is so long that it actually breaks the edit summary. This is not the behaviour that is expected of an admin - admins should be trying to reduce conflict, not increase it. I would strongly suggest that an uninvolved admin closes this before the situation gets worse.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I support the recommendation to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is ridiculous. Loki (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

So, more doxing/ect of editors, nothing to be done?

Just checking in one last time on the harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors that do anything WPO members dislike. Nothing to be done? More of the usual suspects in this thread and related user talk pages that are WPO members and that actively work to downplay and close any discussion about their friendly acquaintances doing said harassment? I'm hard pressed to not see said editors actively palling around to not be just as bad as the serial sock masters and community banned types they're purposefully helping out. I guess same as it ever was. Silverseren^C 00:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the big majority of people understand the concept of an internet message board; and that one posting on an internet message board is not to be confused with endorsing every other post on that board. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, are you saying the two editors who closed the discussions above (IgnatiusofLondon and 28bytes) are either somehow in cahoots with Wikipediocracy or else members there? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren can speak for themselves, but personally I found it very worrying right at the start of the thread that users were jumping to the defense of WPO rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns of (blatant) off-wiki canvassing. Then when true indefensible nastiness occurred over at WPO those users are no where to be seen. Which *could* be interpreted as tacit support. What are the interests being protected here? Clearly not collegiality and civility here at Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have an account on WPO, but only so I can view the private boards. I have never posted or interacted with anyone there, and was only recently on the receiving end of their ire. I am not in cahoots with editors there and have no view on the site, though my limited experience with it has not been endearing. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, A. B., I was referring to editors such as Carrite just above you and AndyTheGrump in the discussions above, both of whom are WPO members that were actively involved in the threads that TheSpacebook made on WPO and both of whom, despite said active involvement, went after GeneralNotability when they blocked TheSpacebook for canvassing. Heck, after all the discussions above, AndyTheGrump went and made a new thread on WPO advocating for more canvassing of the same type done by TheSpacebook on the site. I can only presume this includes advocating for further harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors, since that's the result from those prior threads and I don't exactly see any active WPO members decrying what happened in those threads. Silverseren^C 23:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll simply repeat myself: Bad block. Discussion was ongoing, you essentially supervoted a sanction (with no support in policy, might I add). —Carrite - If that constitutes "going after" an Administrator for a pretty clearly ill-considered and hurried action, I will just shake my head and leave the hyperbole and melodrama to you. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Heck, after all the discussions above, AndyTheGrump went and made a new thread on WPO advocating for more canvassing of the same type done by TheSpacebook on the site. No I didn't. Total fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, I’m confused. @AndyTheGrump and @Carrite’s accounts contradict yours. All 3 of you have been around here since 2010 or earlier. Are they lying? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, A. B., I mixed the two of them up. It was Carrite that started that thread. Andy just went and commented in it yesterday. You'll have to interpret whether his comment is in agreement with the premise or not. The thread is titled "Fellow Wikipedians: Let's Talk About Canvassing" in the BLP subforum. It certainly doesn't seem like either of them are trying to disagree with anything I said on their actual actions, whether with their responses here on Wikipedia or what they've been saying on WPO. Silverseren^C 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My only post in the WPO thread, in full:

The level of Wikipedia paranoia about 'external canvassing' seems almost to have reached the point where the mere fact that something has been discussed externally is seen by some as sufficient reason to close down any further debate. This is of course deeply unhealthy, if not downright dangerous, and open to manipulation.

An unethical Wikipediocracy (I think this one still has ethics of a sort, though some regulars might find the concept hard to handle...) could, were it into looking for ways to pay for the server etc, offer to 'discuss things' loudly here, for a fee, and thereby ensure that they remain undiscussed (or at least discussed properly) in the one place where they really need to be. A nice little earner.

And yes, the second paragraph was an attempt at humour, obviously - the 'evilgrin' smiley I ended it with seems not to be available on Wikipedia. Possibly Wikipedia might like to think over the consequences of reacting with such horror to external websites expressing opinions regarding Wikipedia policy, given the route to manipulation this facilitates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe said reaction is because in this case, much like so many before involving WPO, resulted in other members there doxing and outing Wikipedia editors they disagreed with? I notice you and Carrite seem to be pretty consistently glossing over and ignoring that most important point. Silverseren^C 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider responding to false claims you made about me to be 'glossing over' anything. Beyond that, I am not responsible for everything that gets posted on Wikipediocracy, for the same reason that neither you nor I is responsible for everything that gets posted on Wikipedia. I have had my say regarding what happened on WPO on the forum there, and I am under no obligation to comment further on it here - given your consistent misrepresentation, and given that nobody has accused me of any substantive violation of Wikipedia policy, that is all I have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You are responsible for your choice to continue participating there. Levivich (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Nobody is forced to participate there. Or here. And as long as I have such choices, I will exercise them as I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and I will judge you for the choices you make, such as the choice to defend the forum, to continue participating there, and to gloss over the doxing. You're not responsible for the doxing but you are responsible for your reaction to it, such as glossing over it. And people are perfectly entitled to judge you for that reaction.

So, do you care that on this forum you choose to participate in, they have posted the real names of editors, posted their photos and made fun of their appearance, posted the names of family members, and/or posted family members' photos, for (by my count) over half a dozen editors in the past six months or so?

Will you choose to say anything about that other than "I didn't post it"? Or do you choose to stay silent, ignore or gloss over it, while continuing to participate there as you see fit?

This isn't some passing content dispute or butthurt feelings here, Andy. This is about the privacy and safety of your fellow volunteers. Do you care about that?

So far it looks like you don't because I don't see any concern from you about it at all.

Or you Carrite. Or you stanistani. Just Step Sideways--this was your spot. Where are you guys now? Levivich (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 silence is complicity. It might not break wiki policy, technically, but it certainly isn't commensurate with being a decent human being. Even thespacebook realised the need to distance themselves from the depravity. Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

w r o n g - v e n u e Carrite (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

'Depravity'? Really? For posting on a website that has on occasion used freely available online information (sometime directly from Wikipedia) to link user names with real names? As opposed to posting on another, vastly more prominent website (this one) that does exactly the same thing, routinely on WP:COI, for a start. A website that routinely hosts attack biographies, and routinely obstructs those who complain about being attacked by blocking them for 'conflict of interest', 'legal threats' and whatever other crap it can come up with to avoid admitting that its lack of control of biographical material enables anyone and everyone to use it to settle personal scores, engage in political point-scoring, and whatever other malicious 'content creating' they can get away with. A website that considers random social media posts sufficient evidence to determine an individual's sexuality. A website that has preemptively 'regendered' at least one notable individual against their own expressed wishes. A website that has hosted gossip on everything from allegations about early-teens TV show actors supposedly posting masturbation videos to content (featured in a DYK no less) about a missing person supposedly being cooked in a curry to dispose of their body. A website that where a significant proportion of contributors evidently consider it appropriate to fill a whole article on vacuous gossip and fuckwitted conspiracy theories about the entirely imaginary 'disappearance' of a member of a royal family. A website that reacts to having it pointed out that its own supposed policy on not including personal addresses in biographies has been violated by screaming about 'canvassing'.

Over the years I have, in my own small way, tried to persuade Wikipedia to actually uphold the policies regarding content on living persons that it claims to aspire to. Sometimes I have succeeded, sometimes not. On numerous occasions, where I have succeeded, it has been at the cost of facing abuse from 'contributors' here who seem more concerned about asserting their right to post whatever crap they can find about whoever they like than in creating anything remotely resembling an encyclopaedia. And where I have succeeded, it has become increasingly obvious, it is only ever temporary. This website - routinely used by Google as its number one source of 'information - hosts more malicious biographical content than any one individual could ever rectify, even without the obstructionist gossip-mongers and 'WP:NOTCENSORED' garbage-collectors that infest the site, and use WP:ANI etc as a platform to attack anyone who complains.

So yes, I participate at Wikipediocracy now. Why the flying fuck shouldn't I? If I have to chose between the 'depravity' of WPO and that of Wikipedia, guess which one concerns me more? Guess which one affects the personal lives of those who want absolutely nothing to do with the damn place the more? Guess which one Google sticks at the top of its searches? The level of sheer hypocrisy on this website is almost beyond imagining. Publish Google-scrapings about anyone and everyone but themselves? Fine. Post on a website that points out that someone was using their real name as a username until a few years back, and get screamed at, accused of being 'depraved', and treated as if I'd just pissed on your wedding cake.

Wikipedia is self-evidently incapable of policing itself. It claims to uphold 'policies' on biographical content that turn out to be entirely optional when convenient (more often than not, when the inconvenient 'policy' concerns someone the contributors don't like). It respects the privacy of others only when it feels like it, and yet engages in all sorts of rewriting-history nonsense to preserve the imaginary 'anonymity' of contributors who have made their identities trivially easy to determine - or had even posted it directly. So yes, I'd rather be 'depraved' on a website where not everyone thinks that Wikipedia contributors who abuse the system for personal gain, personal point-scoring, or just plain self-aggrandisement deserve the pseudo-anonymity they desire, than be hypocritical here, where indifference to depravity is masked by fictions like 'always improving' and whatever other relentless bullshit can be used to justify carrying on pumping out the same old garbage.

Wikipedia, given its Google-enforced prominence, needs scrutiny. Deep scrutiny. Critical scrutiny. Investigative scrutiny. Analytic scrutiny. Scrutiny from people who haven't bought into the fluffy-bunny-wonderfulness fantasies of the place. If such scrutiny reveals things that its participants don't like, tough shit. Nobody forced you to participate. You chose, of your own free will to participate on what must surely be the most prominent host of malicious biographical material on the web. Are you doing anything about it? No? Then don't hand out lectures on 'depravity'. Fix your own first. If you can. If you actually want to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in short, that's a yes on the defending WPO's harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors and being fully okay with it because you consider Wikipedia and the community here worse. Good to know. Thanks for laying things out so blatantly like that. Silverseren^C 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you really think that is an accurate summary of what I've just written, I can only suggest that you might be well advised to start looking for a hobby more compatible with your level of comprehension. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a good attempt at rationalization but what Wikipedia doesn't do that WPO does is post the real names of editors because they made a block someone doesn't like. Or post someone's photo just to make fun of it. Levivich (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall that @AndyTheGrump was outspoken in his criticism on Wikipediocracy of User:GeneralNotability's outing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything that can be done. For better or for worse, the Wikipedia community will never agree to sanction users for simply participating in external communities that allow/support for the doxxing of our editors, or is welcoming of other similarly disgusting behavior. We can only hope editors here who are also members there will stop running defense whenever issues like this are raised. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What exactly would you like done? We can't control other websites, and I don't think any Wikipedians in these threads endorse the doxxing. Saying "nothing to be done?" is easy, but I don't see any proposals to do something. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that we can't sanction users for being a member of some off-wiki message board. We can set a clear precedent for how our policies like canvassing apply, though. We can also talk about the COI someone has when discussing what happens on an off-wiki site where they're an active member (and/or even a participant in the thread being discussed on-wiki). General question: what might an on-wiki topic ban from WPO-related matters look like? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's doubtful we can/should police off-wiki discussion in general, nor does off-wiki discussion provide a direct COI. This specific case was an issue due to its direct canvassing, and handling this was enforced in the normal way before being undone because WP:CANVASS' The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)...Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner...Contacting users off-wiki was considered a grey area. If someone canvasses repeatedly, on-wiki or off-wiki, this should be handled in the normal escalatory fashion. CMD (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think (as I have said above) that we ought to at least reach a firm consensus on what constitutes off-wiki canvassing, and should discuss ways to minimize its impact. Putting aside this exact case, confusion over whether (or when) it's acceptable for an editor here to go to an external site and "call for backup" there is a problem. I would also personally prefer at least some additional requirements on canvassed users - one thing I've suggested on WP:CANVASS is a strict requirement that any editor who believes they may have been canvassed to a discussion disclose that fact. At that point (when someone is participating in a discussion they were canvassed to) it is on-wiki activity and is something we can do something about. Of course, canvassing often attracts new users who may not know about that requirement, so some leeway would be needed with them (at least until someone who suspects canvassing explains to them that they need to disclose it and points to the relevant policy), but for experienced users there shouldn't be such leeway. Stealth canvassing is an extremely serious problem that could cause major problems on targeted articles or discussions. I don't personally think anything more than a disclosure is needed (it is not enough for an actual COI on its own IMHO), and it doesn't even have to be specific if editors feel it might be too personally identifiable, but I do believe that an editor who could reasonably be seen as having been canvassed to a discussion ought to have an obligation to disclose that fact so that anyone who evaluates the consensus of a discussion that they were canvassed to can take it into account. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've discussed at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, the most effective way to reduce the impact of people showing up who are unwilling to weigh the relative value of the arguments in a discussion is to change the decision-making process so that the strength of an argument isn't largely determined by the number of people supporting it. For better or worse, though, the English Wikipedia community is reluctant to change this decision-making tradition. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

...Sorry, is this about WP:WPO, Wikiproject Opera? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That would place far too much power in the personal judgment of admins. But even beyond that, I strenuously disagree that it would "solve" canvassing. 100 users who want a particular outcome are going to be better at coming up with arguments for that outcome than 10 equally-experienced, equally-articulate users; even the most flawless, impartial, emotionless admin, gifted with absolutely perfect capability to determine whose arguments are objectively stronger and deciding solely on that basis, would still be more likely to find in favor of the 100 users, because a hundred users are going to be able to find far more of the possible arguments for their position, will be able to do a much more thorough source search, and will be far more effective at poking holes in the arguments of the opposition, based purely on the weight of numbers and nothing else. This means that canvassing can never be allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Admins don't have to be the ones making the decisions. As in the real world, decisions are more effectively made by looking at all the arguments, determining their validity, and weighing their relative value. Of course, nothing will result in perfect decisions being made. Personally, I think it's worthwhile to use approaches that mitigate crowd effects, even if they can't be completely eliminated. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for administrative panel closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)

Hello! Following a discussion with Liz at my talk page, I have come to request whether three administrators might be available and willing to form a panel to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination).

I started the AfD at 21:48 UTC on 31 March, so it is due to close at the same time on Sunday 7 April. The AfD has attracted upwards of 80 !votes already, and follows similarly high participation at the first AfD, BLP noticeboard, deletion review, and second AfD. It has also been the subject of a popular Wikipediocracy forum thread.

Given the high interest in this AfD, and the rather split opinions that are reaching to different policies and guidelines, it would be a great help if three administrators who have been uninvolved in any of the prior discussions might volunteer to close the AfD as a panel. This will hopefully increase the community's confidence that any consensus or the lack thereof is correctly identified, and reduce the chance of the close being contested at deletion review. Many thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I should be available to help close. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing panels have not, in recent times, been less challenged than single admin closes and have not, to my knowledge, been upheld more even when challenged. A 3 admin panel spends a lot of time of 3 administrators to not only do all the work of closing the discussion, but also with collaborating with each other. Given that they are seemingly not achieving their stated purpose of more legitimacy I question the use of editor time, one of our most precious resources, on performing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It also might not be needed; numerically it's 2:1 in favour of deletion, meaning there will need to be a huge swing in the other direction or some very strong keep arguments even to get it to a no consensus close (and no, I did nothing more than count heads, but there's still most of a week to go so it was pointless to do anything but). Primefac (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Except AfD closures are not based on votes but the strength of the arguments. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; nice to see you read what I wrote. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if it sounded dismisive. I know you qualified the statement, but there are AfD closures of no consensus in ones that garner the same ratio with a fraction of the participation. There were vote counters at the first AfD and at the DRV so it's possible I'm developing a twitch in regards to this. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, Sandstein, and Primefac: Even if three uninvolved administrators declare themselves available and interested in forming a panel to close the discussion, as Ingenuity has generously volunteered their time and energy to do so, would you still oppose a panel closure in principle? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell people how they should spend their volunteer time. But I am opposed, in principle, to nearly all closing panels. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am neither opposed nor in favour, I'm just saying that if the consensus is clear enough, a panel is kind of pointless. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity does not need two other people to help them close the AfD, they can do so on their own. Sandstein 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As Barkeep49 alludes to, if those volunteering to evaluate the consensus view of a discussion feel more comfortable doing it in a group and agree on doing it, that's up to them. However personally I disagree with mandating that a group of evaluators is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Barkeep49. With panels we get even more admin overhead for the same outcome. Additionally, panel closures are not provided for in policy, making them out of process. Moreover, calling for them in any slightly controversial case has the effect of delegitimizing single-admin closures. Sandstein 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In the same vein, the RM at Talk:Where is Kate? § Requested move 23 March 2024 has reach the backlog section on WP:RMC. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would be better to close the RM only after the AfD concludes, or people may get confused and scripts may break. Sandstein 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted.

1. Too many alt proposals to be closed within a week.
2. There is no clear consensus yet.
3. We typically close RMs after ongoing AfDs as the process to clean up on the AfD after rename isn't really straight forward.

– robertsky (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the relist! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing this is going to be complicated because it is really covering more than two possibilities. The competing/conflicting RM will make the situation even more complicated. IMO the usual reason (heated/contentious) for panel closures does not exist here. While there are many opposite opinions, I don't see it as particularly heated/contentious. IMO a panel closure would probably just unnecessarily make the closing job even more complicated and time consuming. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, I want to state that I suggested the idea to IgnatiusofLondon on their talk page and I think he put together a very cogent request here even though it is not getting the support I expected. So, you can fault me if you think it is a bad idea. I can just tell from my involvement closing AFDs these days and the twists and turns this article has experienced over the past month, that a solitary admin decision would be contested and that a three admin panel decision would be less likely to end up back at Deletion review taking up even more time from participating admins and editors who frequent that noticeboard. As I stated to IgnatiusofLondon, I see valid arguments on several options at the 3rd AFD but the consensus I truly see in this discussion thus far is that editors are tired of arguing about this article. I thought a panel decision would help avoid a second Deletion review but perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part.

And since I'm here, talking about admin time, we could really use additional help closing AFD discussions. Participation, from discussion participants and closers has fallen over the past year and we really only have 3 or 4 regular admin closers where, when I started 3 years ago, I could easily have named a dozen admins who helped out closing discussions in AFDLand. Even if you could devote an hour one day a week, it would help and I'm sure discussion participants would like seeing more diversity in the makeup of admin closers. I know that almost every admin area has become short staffed after the decline in active admin numbers in past years (since COVID-19 if not earlier) so just consider this my pitch! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I'm surprised to hear this. I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs on my watchlist and when I've been in the mood to maybe do an AfD there is almost never anything open for me to do. Is that bot not properly updating? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll be blunt here. There has been a trend in AFDs that I have seen over the past few years. And I'll admit up front that I'm partially responsible for this (or partially blamed, if you're not so kind). But discussions that seem borderline, strongly divided or sparsely attended are getting relisted more often than they used to be. This relisting has been done both by regular editors who are helping out through relisting AFD discussions and by some admins including yours truly. This relisting has been done because there is no obvious consenus. I know, as a regular closer, that I like to be as certain as I can be about a closure because I get no joy out of being called to Deletion review as you might see from my previous remarks. We have other closers who shy away from closing any discussions that don't seem unanimous or close to unanimous. This isn't ideal but I understand this behavior because being scrutinized at A Deletion review can sometimes feel like you're getting a colonoscopy. They can be a little brutal. However, when I look at AFDs from years ago, I can see where we had some admins who were very decisive about AFD closures but were casting Super votes because their decisions sure don't seem to reflect a consensus point-of-view. So, there are good and bad aspects of relisting disucussions in order to seek more input from editors. I have seen instances where a bunch of editors suddenly show up after several relistings to offer great feedback and the closure becomes clear but there are other instances where closures just keep getting postponed for too long.

The issue you mentioned though arises sometimes with our non-admin helpers. If I'm not sure about a closure, I will sometimes leave a discussion open because the admins who review "old discussions" do not seem to need the certainty that I like to see. However our "helpers" will often relist any discussion they see that is still open. Our regular admin closers are leaving the discussions open for admins like you to handle as old cases but the discussions just get relisted again for another week. I've discussed this with several of our NACers and relisters but it's hard to describe exactly the conditions that exist when they should just let older discussions be and age out and NOT relist them. They want to help but they should just let these discussion cycle over to the Open AFDs page because what they really need is a fresh set of admin eyes to read them over rather than our few regular admin closers.

I realize that by stating all this, I'm opening myself up to criticism as I do tend to relist discussions that I think are ambiguous or have little to no participation (which is a different problem we could talk about another day). And I've anticipated some pushback from AFD participants but I've only seen a few random comments from editors who are impatient about a relised discussion. But this "multiple relistings" trend should probably be reduced except for when it is genuinely called for. That's my feedback to y'all from the AFD trenches. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add that this issue would probably be greatly reduced or even eliminated if we had a few dozen more thoughtful AFD participants but editors seem to burn out on participating there which is understandable. But more participation that is not "per nom", and I think most discussions would have a clearer consensus. That's generally the case for most AFDs except for discussions like that of Where is Kate?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone who contributes at AfD less than I used to I think that relisting and especially the rush to relist is a massive factor in that burnout. Relisting feels like a slap to the face of everyone who has participated, almost as if you're judging their contributions to be insignificant and you're asking for some REAL opinions not the horseshit thats already been offered. I know its not that, but I also know that I'm not the only one who feels a sort of way about relisting. On top of that some people go about relisting in a condescending way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I had noticed this trend in AfDs, but I don't necessarily mind it. In fact I have even asked for a relist once or twice to give the discussion more time. I think I might once have expressed surprise that a strongly trending AfD needed a relist, but on balance I think the cautious approach is beneficial. Personally I don't feel the slap to the face from a relist. I may, however, have adapted to the situation. I watch a lot of AfDs but I don't feel a need to participate in most. If an outcome is strongly trending in a way I agree with, I may not take part at all. I may also be guilty of not wanting to go first on some where a lot of searching is required (Um... like this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Shepstone Secondary School). Proper searching takes time. So often it takes the relist for me to remember to do something. So all in all, the more routine relisting may not be a bad thing, but it may, perversely, slow down participation. One thing that is very helpful is when the relisting contains a comment/prompt as to what is needed, such as a request for a source review, or else, in another case I recall, a request for someone familiar with a particular notability guideline (GEOLAND in that case) to comment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. The way that eager non-admin closers would relist in ways that prevented closures was a problem I dealt with regularly when AfD was a big part of my admin workload. So I get that. But also from what I'm seeing at the moment, it feels like it would be really hard for me to become a high volume AfD closer again, even if I had the time. If that's true for admins who might be willing to help, then I wonder what can be done. That said I'm unsurprised Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion is still true and would agree that if we could solve that it would have a bigger benefit to the system than getting more admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a solid statistical basis for having the default listing period for an AfDs be 168 hours precisely? As far as I can tell, somebody at some point was just like "seven days I guess" and then we spent twenty years having them run seven days -- and there wasn't any kind of math done as to whether 7 was better than 6, 8, 10, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I recall, the thinking was that people have different schedules, so keeping it open for a full week insures that people who, e.g., only have time to edit on Sunday morning, will have a chance to weigh in on a conversation initiated the previous Sunday evening, before it closes. BD2412 T 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a week is eminently sensible for that reason. And I can't see what a shorter or longer timeframe could achieve. In any case, relists sometimes don't seem to run for the full additional seven days. The issue is that relists seem often to act as an "extension" due to minimal participation rather than "we're so close to consensus; we just need a final push" for which I think relists are intended. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Related to this case, an editor RodRabelo7 (!voted keep) has copied the entire page over a redirect [70] and then immediately reverted themselves, creating an unattributed copywithin in the page history of the redirect. Should this be revdelled? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Attribution provided, no need for RD. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Harv errors

I can't seem to remember who showed me harv errors, what to install to see them, specifically to do when I was editing Tottenham season pages. (As I was creating harv errors without knowing!) It seems it maybe very niche topic, because I asked a question at WT:Football, because I could see an error message coming up on Jimmy Greaves on a book citation, related to somewhere on the article, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. But I thought it was one of the admins that knew about them, that showed me. Any help to help me understand what's going on at Jimmy Greaves article, why I am seeing it, to fix it. Be much appreciated. Regards. Govvy (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. The script for seeing harv errors is User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. I'm pretty sure the issue at Greaves is that the book citation doesn't belong in Further reading. You may want to create a "Works cited" section for it.

FYI, this sort of question would be best suited to the WP:Help desk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried adding harvid, not sure if I need to drop the nb or if I need to maybe switch over every harvard citation to sfn format. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: If you want, I could probably get around to swapping them for sfns tomorrow UTC if you want a hand; I've always found harvid clunky on its own. Up to you! ——Serial Number 54129 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's what FFF said: the {{citation}} target of a {{harvnb}} was in "Further reading" instead of somewhere else. I moved it to "Works cited" section. It would still have shown an error if the harvnb was an sfn instead; this was about the citation template being in the wrong section.

BTW I don't know who programs harv errors but it would be helpful if the error message gave the reason for the error. It's a good error (alerting editors when a citation is in the further reading section) but could be a better error message. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: It seems odd that it allows one header, but not another, yep, not exactly clear on the error messages, cheers btw. Govvy (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The only system generated error message is the one that says the reference has no target, the others are a product of the userscript. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of harv errors, I saw the tag in an edit summary recently and had no idea what it was for. Surprisingly, the list at Special:Tags has no information on them. It looks like it is used by Special:AbuseFilter/1254, but I don't know if there are any others. If someone could add a description at MediaWiki:Tag-harv-error-description using the {{Tag description}} template, that would be great. If nobody knowledgeable has access to edit the MediaWiki namespace, you can write a description and which edit filters use the tag here and I can copy it over. (courtesy pings to script authors - @Trappist the monk and Ucucha: ) The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither Module:Footnotes nor User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors have anything to do with the abuse filter except that the author of the filter uses the module's error output to trigger the filter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I'm just trying to get an understanding/description of what harv errors are so we can have the edit filter documented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Harv error messages have a help link to Category:Harv and Sfn template errors to where the error messaging is documented.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

At Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading, I see a harv error that just says "Harv error: linked from CITEREFGreavesScott2004" with no link, and that error doesn't seem to be documented at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors as it's neither a no-target error nor a multiple-target, but a custom user script error, specifically it's at line 83 of TTM's script.

@Trappist the monk, what do you think of modifying line 83 of User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to say something more descriptive like "Harvard citations pointing to citerefs in inappropriate article sections"? Levivich (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: the error at Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading is because a source used by harv/sfn refs has been placed in Further reading, instead of Sources or Works cited. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Those days when you can't get off the roundabout! Or even remember what exit to take! heh. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Harv error: misplaced citation: linked from "CITEREF...YYYY"?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something that more specifically tells the editor the problem is which section it's in? Like, "Citation in wrong section" or something like that? Levivich (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or "citation in inappropriate section"? Levivich (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The terms wrong and inappropriate seem unnecessarily hostile.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. "Citation in incorrect section"? Or "citation in further reading, external links, or publication section"? Levivich (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "differently right" if "wrong" is no longer allowed? DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What you were seeing at Jimmy Greaves (Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading) is Not a "harv error"; it's a "harv warning", and it reads "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreaves1979." These warnings are often seen where there's items that fit the format required for Harvard citations that are not actually used as a citation in the article. It's okay to leave these alone, but if you want to make the warning go away you can add the code |ref=none to the citation template to prevent the creation of the anchor. Here is how I fixed Jimmy Greaves for example. See Template:Cite book#Anchor for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect creation caught in sock filter

Was tryin to create a redirect from Pawan Kumar Chamling ministry to Fifth Chamling ministry but it got cauht in a title filter. Please see if the redirect can be created. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotitbro, I've removed the entry from the title blacklist as it's no longer necessary, so you should be able to create the redirect now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Loukus999

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

---

I just read what seems to be very creative writing by @Loukus999. Someone should keep an eye on his edits and review his past history. I don't have neither the time nor energy to comb through his contributions. GusChago (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gachago: You've failed to notify Loukus999 and you've provided zero evidence in support of your complaint. Plus, this should have been filed at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 OKKKKKKK GusChago (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

User: SunnyMeadows90

This user has been known to trying to push false information and a narrative that is indicative from cited or official sources.

I am talking on the behalf of one of the admins and representatives for the "101 Dalmatian Street" wiki on the fandom wiki site.

We do not use Wikipedia.org more than the cited sources that have been documented. We are here to plea for the ban and removal of the page created by the user SunnyMeadows90. For several months, they have been vandalizing the Wikis listed above, and now, after being denied by the 101 Dalmatians community and multiple times by the admins on the fandom wiki, has begun to create their own page on Wikipedia.

The user SunnyMeadows90 has been making edits to articles related to the "101 Dalmatians" Franchise, under the proclamation that their Fan Ideas are more valid than Official, Cited Sources.

Not only have they been vandalizing the site, but several members of the community have been harassed and even threatened with violence, for not accepting this user's head canon as objective fact. Example 1,( (Redacted) ) Example 2, ((Redacted) )

These actions can be seen as a violation of Wikipedia's Policies on Vandalism, Hoaxes and Fictitious references (Self-Published Sources are not accepted as Valid Citation); As well as a violation of Wikipedia's policies on Harassment.

The page in question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SunnyMeadows90/sandbox

We are here to plead for the ban and termination for user (SunnyMeadows90, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunnyMeadows90&action=info )

Many other 101 Dalmatians creators and community members are extremely concerned about the false information this user has been trying to propagate.

This user has engaged in a months-long campaign spreading their misinformation and harassment of members of the community who contradict them. Please stop this individual from continued harassment and lies. Polyarc12 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This dispute appears unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. I have redacted the personal information added above, and deleted User:SunnyMeadows90/sandbox as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. – bradv 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

spalding united article beingg vandalised

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spalding_United_F.C. found vandalism looking thru edit filter logs cause i was bored 90.210.173.157 (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

i also cant revert it for some reason (sorry if theres an easier way to deal with this i havent used wikipedia in years) 90.210.173.157 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Dealt with; thanks. You will typically get a quicker response at WP:AIV (to ask for vandals to be blocked) and/or WP:RFPP (to ask for pages to be protected). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

request for notification disabling

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

---

I've made an account called User:MyUserPage to redirect people to their own userpage. However, I accidentally enabled push notifications on it. Since I've forgotten the password, how can I disable them? Usersnipedname (nag me/stalk me) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname I am thoroughly confused as to why you would create that, given that it doesn't work as a redirect and we already have a way to get to your own user page (indeed it is the special page you link to). As for "push notifications", I'm not sure what you mean - if you mean emails, if you have an email address attached to the account you can reset the password that way. firefly ( t · c ) 17:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

They created it because they're continuing the WP:CIR edits that led them to be blocked as What is this username?.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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