Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	11	30
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	17	46	63
AfD	0	0	0	47	47

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 143 sockpuppet investigations
• 11 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 42 requests for RD1 redaction
• 48 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 23 requested closures
• 134 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 18 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7757 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run 2024-05-17 21:34 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:BabcocksRhodeIsland1700s 2024-05-17 16:17 2024-05-24 16:17 move Don't move your User talk page except by a Renamer Liz User:MayNard Keith Batiste, Jr 2024-05-17 15:29 2024-05-31 15:29 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Komail Anam 2024-05-17 13:36 2024-11-17 13:36 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute, per WP:Articles_for_deletion/Komail_Anam OwenX 2024 Radboud University Nijmegen pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-17 02:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Speedcore (Punk) 2024-05-16 23:02 2024-05-23 23:02 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno

Action review: Geo Swan and imissdisco

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

---

Background: [[1]]

• Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• imissdisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Geo Swan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Today I noticed a back-and-forth between these two editors at Geo Swan's talk page. Per the background link above, evidently Geo Swan was blocked almost a year ago for creating an article about Dan Trotta while involved in a dispute at commons with imissdisco, which claims to be Trotta's account (I have no way of confirming this). About two weeks ago Geo Swan began posting a "plan for reinstatement" to their talk page. imissdisco, who has not edited this wiki except in relation to this dispute, began to challenge various things that Geo Swan was adding to their "plan", and their conversation became hostile.

Reviewing the talk page, I came across a diatribe in which Geo Swan threatened to ping the blocking admin daily until getting a satisfactory response. Admins are required to be accountable but there is no requirement to be publicly flogged until the offended party is satisfied, particularly in this case where the blocking admin's action was already discussed by the community (background link above). As such, I revoked Geo Swan's talk page and email access, standard practice for overt threats of harassment.

I also par-blocked imissdisco from Geo Swan's talk page, given their unreasonably aggressive tone and threats of their own, because the dispute at commons that started this whole thing seems to still be ongoing and is spilling over here again, and because Geo Swan won't be able to respond anyway.

I understand that the situation between these two editors is somewhat sensitive because the deleted page I won't link to was characterized as an attack page and because one of the parties is allegedly the target of that page (in other words it began with harassment) and so I'm requesting a review of the situation and my actions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cat o'nine tails for HJ Mitchell obviously. But, seriously, that looks fine ((Non-administrator comment)), obvs); notwithstanding Geo Swan's plan for reinstatement, I would say he was more likely to be heading towards a site ban than away from it. It's a shame imissdisco has to be blocked from the talk, but they have absolutely no reason to be editing it that I can see. Although if GS is also harassing her on other wikis (did I see her say that?), that makes her ire very understandable, although not something we can address on en-wp. SN54129 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. This looks like a reasonable response to an unpleasant and disruptive situation. --Jayron32 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Partial endorsement. I've been observing this for some time. It seems to me that imissdisco has been poking Geo Swan with a sharp stick. I am steering clear of the origfinal infraction. I consider, however, that all parties in a dispute are expected to conduct themselves with decorum. Perhaps the original issue was sufficient to cut the stick wielder some slack, but I wonder if the administrative action has gone far enough. My expectation is that, whatever the provocation they should avoid the talk page where they are poking with sticks. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• A clarification. HJ Mitchell is not the blocking admin. He gave a warning, and Drmies subsequently blocked. The block was overwhelmingly confirmed at a discussion here at AN [2]. Geo Swan seems to want to argue about the warning first, before requesting an unblock. I don't know if HJMitchell was even aware of the the posts: it doesn't seem required to watchlist a page almost a year after giving a warning, and the first actual ping was yesterday, I believe, though does it even work if you add a ping to previous text? In any case, Geo Swan continuing to argue that he was right, including ramping up the situation by asking for the undeletion of the contested picture at Commons (apparently in order to force Imissdisco to self-identify officially), seems very, very unlikely to convince editors to unblock him here. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A ping only causes a notification if you sign the same edit that you add it with. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo-blocknotificationslist and fill in a harasser's username, you won't see those pings no matter how often they're sent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Geo is incapable of collegiately editing, which is a shame because he has also provided good content. I don't know the IP, but agree with them in the request that Geo's response warranted further eyes, although I don't fault anyone in opting not to. Engagement with them is unnecessarily hostile, which is why I asked them not to email me. They had talk page access and did not need to resort to off wiki communications because they believe others need to be at their beck and call. Star Mississippi 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wait, Geo Swan is still writing about Trotta and still using the photo Trotta objected to elsewhere on the Internet as recently as this month? It seems like we're moving closer to Trust & Safety territory than an unblock. The summary Imissdisco posted at Geo Swan's talk page seems helpful. As he admits, he's not a Wikipedian and made the initial photo request without understanding how things work simply because he didn't like the photo. That's something we see every day. Yes, it can be annoying when you're oriented towards building a free knowledge resource and someone wants to remove an illustration just because they don't like it, but from the subject's standpoint it's completely reasonable. So when it wouldn't hurt much, or when there's something unusual about the case, we try to accommodate those requests. But Geo Swan went to great lengths to ensure it would never be deleted and, moreover, spread the photo to even more locations. It's wildly inappropriate, and I really don't see a way forward for Geo Swan without owning up to that, without pointing fingers, doing everything they can to undo the harassment, volunteering for a topic ban about Dan Trotta, and probably some other BLP restrictions. Given the current situation, I support the actions at the top. (And btw I'm not even saying the photo should've been deleted. It was two years old, was just a crop of a group photo that wouldn't have been deleted, and Commons errs on the side of preservation both due to its broad scope and to protect anyone who may have used that photo outside of Wikimedia projects and is counting on Commons documenting the license.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• I participated at GeoSwan's talk page, but my advice was not taken. As I wrote there, he's an amazing editor and I hope he can eventually get over himself and be allowed to return here. In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages, so I hope we can avoid ourselves doubling down here, and at least avoid removing that; he's not doing a very good job of advocating for his return, but he is trying. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages In the immediate aftermath of the block, yes. Not almost a year later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm looking at the wrong deleted article, but the last deleted article of GS doesn't look like an attack to the naked eye. imissdisco did look like they were wholesale deleting sections they didn't like. What about it is attack? What am I missing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It was created for the purpose of bothering the BLP subject, while the GeoSwan was actively arguing with and insulting the subject on Commons. GeoSwan said ahead of time that it would be a dick move to create the article, and did so anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you. For what it is worth, the article itself was fairly benign. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but blocks are for behavior and not content. The act of using the creation of an article as a weapon against another user is certainly a novel way to attack them, but it's still an unreasonable thing to do. --Jayron32 13:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• GeoSwan's behaviour over the last few days suggests they need a community ban, and certainly not unblocking at any point. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• I support any block or ban of Geo Swan that we have the power on en.wiki to implement or endorse. A year later, Geo Swan is still acting in an emotionally reactionary way, unable to control their temper in the way that I would expect a Wikipedian to be able to do were the incident something that happened yesterday, and making threats of harassment (to HJ Mitchell). They display no understanding of why they were blocked, and Imissdisco (whose comments are quite tame) alleges continued off-wiki harassment. Geo Swan says that they were drunk while committing harassment against Imissdisco, but that is a matter for more concern, not less. This is becoming a T&S matter, as Rhododendrites says.
  Lastly, while my condolences go to anybody who is experiencing grief, editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and we have precedent of not lifting blocks/bans that were issued after impulsive behaviour by a person experiencing serious negative life events due to the pandemic. The question here is "will this person be a net positive if unblocked?", not a question of fairness. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Considering GeoSwan is using their Talk page to argue about the block, rather than attempting to appeal, I'd suggest revoking Talk page access & making them use UTRS. This obsession of his is getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support full-fledged site ban of Geo Swan, and I'd probably support a T&S ban too. I do not recall crossing paths with Geo Swan, but I do recall having a high opinion of his past work, and being shocked to find he'd been indef'd... and then disgusted after reading why. We must reject and act against any forms of harassment; Imissdisco does not deserve this treatment. If Geo Swan is still obsessing over this matter nearly a full year on from the imposition of his indefinite block, then I think we can safely say that he is no longer "here". --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban GeoSwan has been repeatedly counselled over many years for a range of BLP issues relating to their editing (e.g. creating negative articles on people for what appear to have been WP:COATRACK purposes, creating articles on non-notable people accused of terrorism, etc - see the various reports via [3], Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan and the list of articles they created which have since been deleted at [4] - most of the 708(!) are BLPs). As they are continuing problematic behaviour related to BLP while blocked for this, a ban is clearly in order given there appears to be no likelihood they will be ever adhere to the key BLP policy. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my original comment. SN54129 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• This action seems entirely appropriate to me. There have been problems with Geo Swan's editing, especially concerning BLPs, for a very long time. It should not be necessary to explain to an editor of GS's experience why weaponising Wikipedia in such a way is abhorrent, and that he still doesn't get it a year later shows that the block is clearly still necessary. His conduct on his talk page unfortunately necessitated the removal of his ability to edit that as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse admin action and support site-ban. I take a very dim view of using our internal processes to harass someone, regardless of good work that they did. Reminds me of Tenebrae, but arguably milder. Still, harassment is not to be tolerated. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban. We don't need an editor who seems to have spent a year seeking vengeance. I haven't researched their record as a content editor, but we don't need editors whose desire for revenge appears to be greater than their desire to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • He's one of the top 1000 editors of all time. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. He specializes in the losing side of politics - for example he wrote a huge series of articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees. His desire to contribute to the encyclopedia is quite strong. I hope the revenge thing was a one-time aberration, and he will promise to cut it out - though I admit he hasn't yet. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of talk page and email.
• Endorse partial block of imissdisco
• Support site ban of GeoSwan . A once great editor who continues to try to harass people. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Laments being blocked on Wikipedia, yet continues the same destructive behavior? While drunk? (what!) Classic lack of insight. Wikipedia is not therapy-- or AA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  i cannot reach WikiAlpha. Is it me, or is it down? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Have a trout... ><((()))> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Site-ban The fact that he is still doing this means that any unblock should have to be approved by the community. This is unacceptable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Support site ban, as I reported to several blocks, it does not accept the unblock requests and to approved to ban in the English Wikipedia. Maanshen (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Darkness Shines unban appeal (for discussion)

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

---

Copied from User talk:Darkness Shines

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It has now been four years since the community voted to ban me from Wikipedia. For the last two years I requested of the arbitration committee that I be allowed to edit again. However given it was Wikipedias editors who decided I had become a net negative, I believe it is those editors who I ought to need to appeal to. I fully admit to being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. But that was four years ago, and I have changed for the better. I no longer drink to excess . I am far calmer and not prone to losing my temper as I used to, perhaps because I drink far less, or maybe I've just gotten calmer with age. So I'm asking the community if they would allow me the privilege of editing again, should anyone have questions for me please feel free to post here. If someone would be so kind as to copy paste this to where a majority of editors will see it I'd be grateful. Thanks ¬¬¬¬

I have one, why is this so important to you? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I enjoy editing and creating articles, it's that simple really. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

To expand on that, creating something that anyone in the world can access for free, well who wouldn't want to be allowed to do that? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(watching) It's certainly ironic, considering the number of editors we have whose very successful wiki-careers are built around everything but content creation. Hey ho. SN54129 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm biased. But, assuming that there aren't any red flags (socks), I'd support allowing DS to edit again. Agree that DS is aggressive and often (apologies, DS) sloppy in their haste to add content. But they have added a lot of useful content to Wikipedia and I consider DS a net positive. I should also mention DS's ability to identify nangparbat socks is unparalleled. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A Checkuser was recently run on my account, hilly Billy Holiday socked with a similar sounding username. I have no other accounts and have not edited since my ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is documented at Hillbillyholiday's SPI - it may read a little confusing, but I can confirm it's the case. I can also confirm, being somewhat familiar with the technical circumstances, that I have nothing to add from a checkuser perspective. In other words, it gets a tentative green light from me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• I generally prefer a formal probationary period for situations like this (where self control appears to be the issue) of something like 3 or 6 months. But I'd support without that as a second choice. The issue appears to be solely self control, and it's been ~4 years. Worth another try for someone with a strong content history IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept appeal and I'm willing to accept any probationary steps others think are appropriate. I remember DS vividly, as both an excellent defender of sources, and as a major pain in the ass. I'm glad he mentions drinking in the appeal, something some of us already knew was part of the problem. (but I wouldn't have mentioned it unless he had). If DS comes back and stays away from the extremes, he really is a big net plus. He has that potential. Whether or not he lives up to it, only time will tell, but it has been long enough that I feel we should give him a last, 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I really don't know where some people are getting this idea from that DS was somehow a potentially useful contributor with only a short temper being a problem. No, DS was never a useful contributor. His main problems were always incompetence and tendentiousness. He wasn't forever edit-warring because he had a short temper; he was forever edit-warring because he was always drawn into editing articles where he had a massive tendentious POV, didn't have the self-restraint to stop him from filling articles with poorly-digested, poorly-written and poorly understood tendentious POV fluff, and lacked the intellectual acumen to engage meaningfully on talk about these issues. Yes, he wrote a lot of content – a lot of uniformly bad content. He's the only editor I ever knew who managed to get himself topic-banned from at least three political hot-issue areas at once (Eastern Europe, India/Pakistan, and US politics); this didn't happen just because he used to swear a lot when drunk. A net positive? Ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept per WP:ROPE, and four years being a long time in Wikipedia. It's certainly long enough for people, and their circumstances, to change. If FP@S's venom is at all justified, then we'll all be back here soon enough. Most importantly of all, DS must know that too: if he has another chance, it'll only be the one. SN54129 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, the old "give them a last chance, re-blocks are cheap" mantra. No, re-blocks are never cheap, especially not with entrenched, experienced disruptors with wikifriends protecting them. This person has had dozens of second chances and last chances. He somehow managed to talk himself out of a block 12 times in 9 years. And every time he had to be re-blocked afterwards, it was a long-drawn-out, energy-draining procedure, devastating to all envolved. BTW, he now even denies [5] he was ever topic-banned from Eastern Europe. Yes, he was, under his "User:The Last Angry Man" sock account, in October 2011 (shortly after having talked himself out of the initial sock block for that one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(General reply to all) It wasn't much of a denial when in the same sentence they admitted to being t-banned from two other topic areas. I think we can allow a gill of good faith for a memory lapse over something that occurred a decade ago for three months. What I'm looking for is the possibility that someone can change in the amount of time that has passed (I doubt anyone would argue that, except the most incorrigible), and signs of recent disruption (socking). CU gives that a (tentative) all-clear, and I suppose NOTPUNITIVE means something. Admittedly I have the advantage of looking at this as something of a historical episode, not being personally invested, but I assure anyone who wants to know that, should DS go back to their old ways—or discover new ways!—of disruption, then I will be the first back here calling for reinstallation of the site ban. And one where their feet won't touch the ground. SN54129 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd like to see evidence of meaningful, constructive editing elsewhere (not necessarily a wikimedia project) before voting to support an unban. This user has been blocked before and convinced us they'd changed, only to demonstrate no significant improvement. Maybe this time, they really have, but there's nothing here that demonstrates that to me. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock, four years of patience and still willing to volunteer? Open the door wide for those who wait. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support only under a formally logged restriction that, for at least one year, the indefinite siteban will be immediately reinstated if they are blocked for any reason whatsoever. This user has been blocked, conditionally unblocked, and then re-blocked twelve times; the average time to the recidivism block is 44.08 days thanks to an outlier at nearly 6 months; in all but three of these cases they were re-blocked less than a month later, the shortest time being less than two days. This doesn't count numerous blocks that expired with no action, nor the block logs of the ten confirmed socks in their SPI. This is a user who has shown, repeatedly and consistently through time, that they know how to talk themselves out of consequences, that blocks don't teach them anything, and that they either fully intend to reoffend or they can't help themselves. I'm all for second chances (although we're well into double-digit numbers of chances here already) but let's not waste our time if they show, again, that they still can't follow the rules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:, I'm honestly struggling to understand how this restriction is supposed to be effective. The threat of, and actual implementation of, indefinite blocks/bans has previously proven to have little deterrent value in this editor's case. Are we really giving that much benefit of the doubt that this time it will work? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I am concerned that such a "one strike and you're out again" rule would actually have the opposite effect, of effectively raising the bar for any sanction to be imposed. Given the long history of administrators bending over backwards to accommodate this person and of wikifriends protecting him, administrators might be even more reluctant to impose even just a short-term block if they knew that it would automatically trigger a permanent ban again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Eggishorn: well, the fact that previous sanctions have done little to deter this editor is the point of the restriction. They have a long record of not learning from restrictions and we don't have any way to be sure that this time in the penalty box will be any different from the other dozens of times. The restriction is just a relief valve: if we unblock them and they just get in trouble again, we don't need to have another lengthy discussion about what to do about it this time, we just reinstate the ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional support, per IV. I remember DS well, he was among the first prolific editors I encountered in my own time on Wikipedia. He was impatient, sometimes careless, profane, and bloody rude. Also, to anyone who knew him well, it was obvious that he believed deeply in Wikipedia's mission, and he drew his motivation from writing content. He stepped over the line often enough that I don't see this being a "last chance": but I think four years off the site is long-enough, given his particular offences, that we can seriously consider an appeal that identifies and promises to correct behavioral problems. He's going to be on a very tight leash as is: I believe he's still under an ARBIPA TBAN (right?) and I would additionally suggest, per IV, that any further issues with copyvios or sockpuppetry should lead to a reinstatement of the ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support also per IvanVector and Vanamonde93. It's possible that he has overcome the issues that led to his siteban, but I'm afraid I don't trust him enough to support him coming back without strict restrictions. I note that he doesn't discuss all of the issues that led to the siteban. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support under the terms outlined by Ivanvector. He has now stayed away from the project for almost half as long as he was ever active, and I don't think his failure to spell out why he kept being blocked is a sign of incorrigibility so much as the fact that he has already admitted to being an ass and not much else really needs to be said. I never have never encountered this editor or his contributions, so I cannot comment on the above question as to whether there was a fundamental content problem as well as a behavioral one; if there was, I hope that not being drunk will help with the quality of his edits as much as he claims it will help his behavior. Darkness Shines should understand, however, that if he is blocked again at any point in the nearish future, that block will be essentially permanent. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per FutPerf. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per FutPerf. I hate to say it, but the time for "one last chance" was past when the ban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The WP:STANDARDOFFER was expended long ago, they have had enough WP:ROPE to moor a battleship, and their content creation cannot offset a fundamental inability to cooperate. While I appreciate the intention behind Ivanvector's proposed restriction, I cannot support it. After looking through the history of blocks, bans, ANI threads, etc., I think that there will be lengthy discussions the next time that DS blows their top. There is copious evidence that such another incident is inevitable. I would like to believe their claims of growth but there is a years-long record of previous such claims not being borne out. If DS is able to show productive, civil editing for an extended period (six months or more) on a similar project, I would reconsider. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was probably a time where I would have been swayed by the appeals to personal growth, time served, right to an nth chance, etc. But that time is past, because I've seen over and over again how this community bends over backwards to rehabilitate endlessly problematic editors while denying even a scrap of empathy to the people whom they've harmed. We pat ourselves on the back for our graciousness, quote the-quality-of-mercy-is-not-strained and WP:ROPE, condemn as "venomous" anyone who objects to lifting sanctions... and then when these editors backslide, no one who's commenting here in favor of an nth chance will lift a finger. I'm no longer willing to participate in what increasingly strikes me as a cynical dynamic. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I note that I was the original proposer at WP:ANI in February 2018 of the current site ban. I was about to propose that Darkness Shines be asked to identify a niche area in which they would be allowed to edit to demonstrate that they had, in four years, learned how to edit collaboratively, or at least to avoid the worst. Then I reviewed their history again. I see not only the longest block log I have ever seen, which is mostly in 2011 to 2014, but also repeated episodes of sockpuppetry. As a result, I don't trust Darkness Shines, and I don't think that I will trust Darkness Shines in 2026. They may and do mean to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but they have demonstrated not only a lack of civility and a lack of discipline, but a lack of respect for the rules. As I said four years ago, Yuck. Ugh. I don't trust Darkness Shines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MastCell and FutPerf. This pattern stretches over years and does not inspire confidence. GAB^gab 00:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept appeal and unblock. Four years is a long time, and Darkness Shines has given a plausible explanation of why we can expect they will contribute more productively now than they did before. I know it's not guaranteed, and we've been burned before, but if we're not willing to accept their explanation then we might as well give up on the theory that indefinite does not mean infinite. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anyone who is thinking of supporting needs to first review Darkness Shines' block log, which contains three indefinite blocks (that is to say, Darkness Shines has successfully appealed an indefinite block in the past saying they've changed, exactly like this, and then gotten themselves blocked again, twice), as well as the discussion that led to the most recent block, their appeal to their previous block (which had an "it's been a long time, I have changed" tone similar to this one); the full text of the other time they successfully appealed an indefinite block is unavailable because it was via email, but the message here makes it clear they promised they had turned a new leaf and could be civil back then, too. The only rationale given here is "they may have changed", but note that in Darkness Shines' explanation for how they changed, they say almost nothing - they were not simply banned for being short of temper, frequently drunk, and quite often profane to the extreme. They were banned for continuous edit-warring and a sustained pattern of gross, repeated incivility across entire topic areas - something that goes way beyond the occasional loss of temper. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, perhaps with the conditions mentioned above by Ivanvector. I'm certainly not saying that DS was ever a model editor (and nor is he, to be fair) but some of the attacks on DS above are slightly overblown, and at least one is exaggerated to the point of being economical with the truth. I don't see the downside of a WP:ROPE trial. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not thrilled with the idea of Darkness Shines' return. He's expensive in volunteer time.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I recall interacting once with Darkness Shines, whose action was (in my opinion) helpful for Wikipedia. I'd support a filter for foul language, but it should apply for everyone. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Looking through their edit history I have a hard time believing they would be a net positive should they return, and I place more importance on that than the length of time they've been blocked for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm all for extending some latitude for time served, but this was a community ban after 3 previous indefs, I don't think any more chances are going to change anything for the better. How many more hours are people supposed to waste on one editor when they have shown no interest in moderating their tone or editing behavours? Valeince (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

UCoC enforcement guidelines voting has begun

This is your unofficial reminder to vote in the UCoC enforcement guidelines ratification. Please, consider doing so if you haven't already!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the impenetrable Meta Strikes Back. Well, at least as a venue, it isn't a ghost town like Fakebook's Meta (Truth Sokial?). BTW, the Glossary cracked me up. Q: what is X? A: See X on Meta. What, we are on Meta? Well, we're still not gonna link it for ya, peasants! And... scene. El_C 08:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I linked the most obvious ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Affcom is the Affiliations Committee and not the Affections Committee? Now I'm extra-sad. El_C 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if there is a logical discussion venue - no doubt there should be one, not sure if it should be here, somewhere else local, or there @MJL: - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I'm cool with whatever, but I'd check with Xeno (WMF) since he's the one that gets paid for this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty pathetic. Doesn't anyone there know how to link? Doug Weller talk 12:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This was a reply to El C, but reply didn't put it in the right place. Known problem? Doug Weller talk 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Your reply was (and still is) correctly positioned as a reply to El C. See WP:INDENT for the basic rules of threaded discussion: If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level. Floquenbeam's reply above (not made with the reply tool) is an example of one that is not correctly positioned. Modulus12 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right of course. It's a problem with WP:INDENT, not the reply tool IMHO, in that it's not obvious unless you carefully look and line up the replied. Like it or not, User:Floquenbeam's post is an obvious reply to El C, mine is not. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Modulus12: Didn't read all of your post. So you are saying that the reply tool isn't doing what I expect/want it to? I did notice once that using it and saving after someone else posted didn't cause an edit conflict but put it after the other person posted, so I went in and moved mine. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you expected it to do. But in this diff the reply tool correctly positioned your comment as a reply to El C, after Nosebagbear's reply to El C. I don't think there's anything wrong with the essay WP:INDENT either. Modulus12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question, asking for a friend. Do administrators have to sign their names in blood when forced to agree to this or will a regular pen or pencil do? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been A Metamate? El_C 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Assuming your friend isn't an admin yet (because existing admins don't have to sign anything), I'm pretty sure it'll be a digital signature –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My friend is rejoicing as we speak, because apparently "All advanced rights holders" doesn't apply to admins, as in "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct: All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors; All advanced rights holders;". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Vote early, vote often, vote no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Can someone please answer a procedural question (I don't want to e-mail the meta address to ask)? If I vote no, there is apparently a box to comment on why I'm voting no. Do I have to comment? If I don't, is there some kind of, uh, follow-up? I find the instructions confusing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having just voted, you do not need to fill out the comment. There was no follow-up after submitting my vote, beyond receiving a PGP hash receipt of it for my own records. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there actually is a box even if you vote yes, though I've not tested Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  The comments box is available regardless of the answer to question 1 (Options: No, -, Yes); it is for overall comments, not necessarily a justification for your vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, upon voting No (a few min prior to commenting here, at AN), my vote box comment read (in full): learn to condense! I'm helping! El_C 15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Learn to condense"? That's rude! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably a violation of the UCoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote James Randal: I got scared. El_C 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I highly recommend you include the reason why you voted no if you voted no. If ratification was to fail at this stage, then the revision committee that gets formed is going to use what people wrote as the basis for deciding what changes should get made. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Leaving comments no matter how you vote is helpful. Either it will pass and there will be an amendment process in a year (at which time it would still be good to know what people liked/disliked at ratification) and a U4C building committee (who might be able to address some issues that were disliked) or it won't pass and revisions will get made in which case again it's helpful to know what people liked and disliked so the right things are changed. If you already voted and didn't leave a comment you can go back and vote - only your most recent vote/comments are kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In other words, we're going to keep having the vote with minor tweaks until we say "Yes". Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why would the tweaks have to be minor? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• They don't. But this is the WMF we're talking about here, I can't see them majorly revising this very important thing. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• This may be a gross misreading on my part, but does the section on harassment, as currently written, prevent us from sending non-public off-wiki information about other editors to ARBCOM? If so, that's immediate grounds for opposition; we cannot hope to deal with off-wiki harassment and coordination without the ability to handle such information. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm very confident that it's not intended as such, you're right that the base UCOC text doesn't include write-outs for it. It has a general category, that UPE (etc) combatting wouldn't fall into, and then names certain "included but not limited to" names buckets. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this, Nosebagbear: do you know if ARBCOM members have commented on this before? I'm minded to ping some of them here, but I don't want to make a scene if it's been resolved elsewhere. I find this very concerning. ARBCOM has frequently banned users here because of their off-wiki activity; how is this to be brought to their attention going forward? Is the board aware that they are essentially preventing us from discussing off-wiki harassment anymore? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to yell for attention, but given the off-wiki harassment I've seen, I think it's justified; @Wugapodes, Barkeep49, and L235: I'd be interested in hear whether y'all think the the doxing section of the UCoC prevents editors from bringing off-wiki information to ARBCOM when it relates to things besides paid editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself, I don't get that reading, but if you are not confident that the policy is clear enough, then that is a good reason to oppose. Section 3.1 of the UCoC, Harassment, includes a definition at the start any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Sharing non-public personal information with the arbitration committee in private for the purposes of administering the project does not seem to fall under that definition. My understanding of the doxing example in the text is that it is limited by that main definition, and covers the public sharing of non-public personal information as the main outcome of that action would be intimidation, outrage, or upset, but private reports have the main outcome of effective project administration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I can see how it may be read that way; and if it's always read that way, it would address my concern. I'm not (yet) confident it will always be read that way, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting that I am not speaking publicly about the UCoC Enforcment draft, other than to encourage people to vote and leave comments regardless of which way they're voting. Courtesy ping to MJL who has been speaking about their interpretation of things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have any special insight about the UCOC itself, so I try to avoid talking about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Other than the apparently obligatory fear and loathing of anything WMF does, can somebody explain what the problem is with the UCoC? I get the objection made by Vanamonde93 about off-wiki evidence, but I assume that's something that can get fixed with a minor working tweak. So, what else about this has people upset? I've read through the whole thing and I really can't find anything it prohibits which I wouldn't want prohibited. I assume nobody's saying that sexual harassment, doxing, threat of violence, etc, are actually things they want to allow. So, what am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm perhaps in the "pass with fixes but not right now" camp. I'm leery about the lack of language describing who gets to decide when there are failures to resolve disputes locally or systemic failures to enforce the UCoC; if this is clearly a decision made by the community at the target project and/or Metawiki, there's no problem IMO, but right now it's vague and could be interpreted as a blank check for office actions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  But there already is pretty much a blank check for office actions, and this doesn't change that one way or the other. Is there any fundamental difference between WMF doing something we don't like and justifying it with "Because T&S" vs "Because UCoC"? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's reasonable to worry, even without indulging the "WMF is out to get us" mentality, that the community buy-in afforded by a successful passing of a UCoC would encourage the WMF to use its provisions more fully than the existing T&S. Given the possibility, I'd rather object now and push for language I am fully comfortable with rather than endorse something I don't necessarily agree with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: I'm not convinced about the possibility of a minor working tweak. I'm also not sure how this impacts on fighting paid editing. Without something more official I shall probably vote no. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Principal issues to me, @RoySmith with the enforcement guideliness (phase 2) include:

  i) There are numerous requirements of anonymity capacity, but no countervailing evidentiary safeguards for the accused. It moves the marker a very long way.

  ii) It also, despite it being the single most requested amendment to the 1st iteration of phase 2, has functionally zero right to be heard inclusion. Such a right definitely shouldn't be absolute, but given the community demand, its exclusion (other than one line that may refer to it, but only in specific regard to the U4C) is unacceptable

  iii) It is unclear - even in English, making the translations likely even harder to be confident on reasoning

  iv) The training is mandatory (the definition that grandfathers admins doesn't apply here), and doesn't give a community veto on its content

  v) We were guaranteed that phase 2 would be iterative, but they decided, right at the endgame, that we would not be permitted any chance to amend significant parts of the policy text prior to the vote. That is, we'd never seen it until December, and despite major discussion, if we don't vote no, we can't fix flaws with it.

  vi) We were not permitted a vote on phase 1, and then T&S policy stated that no-one in the community had requested a ratification vote prior to the ARBCOM open letter, and when I provided a diff demonstrating exactly that, six months earlier, they ceased communicating about it. Until all issues with prior engagement have been resolved, I am nervous about trusting future ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope any admins supporting this are looking forward to their compulsory UCoC training course. This hasn't been developed yet but the WMF's anti-harassment course lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework. Hut 8.5 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Where does it say there's going to be a compulsory training course? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  RoySmith "Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation". That includes all advanced rights holders. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training... That includes admins: the "Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups" section says The following individuals should be required to affirm... they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct...All advanced rights holders. The glossary says that "Advanced rights holders" includes admins. Hut 8.5 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. I had to go hunting to find that, but for future reference, it's here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework - Not gonna do that, personally. WP is suppose to be a fun hobby for me, and having to deal with a lengthy "seminar" and likely giving more personal information to the WMF than I would care to in the process of signing up does not sound enjoyable, plus whatever "follow-up" I'm sure they'll deem is necessary in a few months. I will almost certainly be resigning the mop if it comes to that. Hog Farm _Talk 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s going to happen. They must know that’s too much. Do we have any information about what they actually plan? Doug Weller talk 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Call me cynical, but I'm not sure the WMF wants us to know exactly what they plan, or they'd be making it more clear. Either that, or Hanlon's razor is at play here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: As far as I am *personally* aware, no course has actually been made yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which makes it difficult to support. A bit of a pig in a poke. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm just trying to share what I know. How the vote goes is beyond my control, but I'm glad the WMF is having a ratification process here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Roy, with insufficient clarity about local control vs WMF control of enforcement, I worry that without further clarification in advance, this process as written will make it much easier to weaponize the UCOC, even easier than it is to weaponize our local policies. Some may recall we had a little dust up about that a few years ago, involving Fram? Voting yes on this, as written, seems to me to be giving up all the local control we painfully clawed back from WMF that time. Once approved, WMF will have zero incentive to modify things they like that we don't. Of course we all don't support harassment, but there is a thread on ANI right now where an editor is threatening to report another editor they're in a content dispute with to T&S for "bullying". I do not trust T&S to evaluate such a claim fairly. I think it will be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of T&S than even editors at ANI, or our local ArbCom. One thing I'm curious about; if editors of other language wikis - where there may be no functioning ArbCom, and where something like this might make sense as "better than nothing" - vote for this, and English WP editors vote against, I'm guessing WMF is going to interpret that as an approval to go ahead and apply it to us too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  If 50.1% of voters support the enforcement guidelines, they will be applied to all editors. The UCoC was implemented by a Board resolution making it binding policy under section 11 of the Terms of Use, but also means it can only be modified with the consent of the Board. I expect the enforcement guidelines to be resolution'd into force the same way. Neither document allows the community to make amendments to the UCoC itself or the enforcement guidelines, the only indication such a thing might be possible is an announcement that is not binding on anyone and was signed only by the current Vice Chair of the Board. The latest I've heard from the WMF is that if the guidelines pass even with widespread opposition, there will be no amendments for at least a year. Of course, the Board can modify either document by resolution whenever they want.

  Putting on my pile of non-enwiki hats, I think the UCoC will be a good thing for many wikis. But the enforcement guidelines are just not ready yet, and ideally the UCoC itself should have had another pass too. It is not possible to simply legislate social change into existence with a few Board resolutions, it is necessary to actively work with the affected people to fix problems and to find a mutually-acceptable solution. However, the WMF has decided to ignore this successful consensus-based model, and I think both documents are worse off because of it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:Fram, if anyone has forgotten. Please everyone: vote! I might disagree with "the powers that be" here on en.wp from time to time, but I have a heck of a lot more trust in en.wp that I have in WMF. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Pointless, off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - The voting's taking place on Meta? No thanks. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC) No, it takes place here. The explanation page on how to vote is on Meta, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Not signing in at that other place, to vote. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: You don't have to (and in fact can't) sign in at vote.wikimedia.org. Just click the "Go to the voting server" button at this meta page and you'll be taken to the voting page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I believe I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 would be a non-meta way to the voting server. Habitator terrae (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I've always held the opinion that those who don't vote also don't get to complain about the result — I'm sure you feel the exact same way. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC) The opposite, actually. George Carlin's observation on the vote/don't vote topic, is one that I tend to agree with. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC) So that logic actually suggests you should vote in referendums. You're not voting for a person here. No gargabe in, no garbage out. Unlike with a person by voting you are making an actual decision here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: sorry to add to a close discussion, but while it's your choice if you want to vote because of the above discussion I just want to ensure that you understand SecurePoll is the exact same way we've been voting in arbcom elections (and some others) since 2009. And the only difference I can think of between this vote and such votes other than the obvious i.e. what you're voting for (possibly including the area of effect) and timeframe, is the scrutineer selection process (although scrutineers for arbcom elections come from outside en.wikipedia) and instructions, and voter eligibility. The software you're voting on, connection of the software to en.wikipedia and the community etc is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost Late Question

I realized that I have waited until almost the end to vote. There is lengthy discussion above that provides at least as much noise as signal. It appears that the rough consensus is that we should vote No because, as written, the enforcement guidelines will expand the powers of T&S without any particular constraint on those powers, and so increase the likelihood of another Framgate. Is that basically what has been said above? Is there another two-paragraph summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's how I've understood it, Robert. I 'm pretty sure which thread on ANI Floquenbeam refers to above, and yes, I can see how worrying WMF's handling of such cases could easily become. Full transparency: I've just voted "no", and have written "Because of the Fram fiasco" in the comments box. Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

But that was kind of useless. I have re-voted (which is perfectly kosher) and adduced a much fuller rationale. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC).

Perhaps it goes without saying that recent events reinforce my concerns about bad-faith weaponization of the UCoC as a bullying tool. I don't see a lot of evidence that there are safeguards in place to prevent this inevitability, and I don't know that the WMF's track record inspires a leap of faith in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of different reasons people had in the above thread. I don't believe anywhere in the proposed enforcement guidelines T&S have their authority expanded, but some people did mention above they did not restrict T&S enough (in their view). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJL While direct authority shift to T&S is not a particular concern of the UCOC#EGs, assuming that T&S will be the ones writing the training, where the Community is only consulted on its content, rather than authority to discard it, that is a source of authority given its purpose is to standardise judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS closure review

I'm requesting community review of the close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, ideally from uninvolved editors. On 7 March I closed the discussion with my impressions from the discussion and its subproposals. Editors raised concerns on my talk page, and after about two days of responding I closed the user talk discussion and pointed further concerns here. Community review was not sought by participants. GiantSnowman raised concerns about the community response on my talk page and at the time I responded that I thought things were proceeding normally. Muboshgu then notified me of an edit war on the guideline page which resulted in the page being full-protected.

Clearly the result of the RfC is contentious and implementation is stalling in part because of concerns about whether my close is valid. To resolve these concerns, I hope community review will yield a firm outcome that can be implemented without further disruption. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the close, both in general and of the specific subproposals, was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the discussion and consensus resulting from it, even though I am personally disappointed that some of the subproposals, such as subproposal #10, were closed as "no consensus". The edit war noticed by Muboshgu is WP:STONEWALLING by editors who opposed the proposals, and isn't suggestive of an issue with the close. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Stonewalling aside, it's worth noting here the closer's conclusion in subproposal 1 that "Editors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG" and "The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding". This contradicts the statement in the collapsible FAQ that "sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met". This reflects the established consensus as was built throughout the years, and so the closer wasn't in a position to challenge (effectively supervoting) it at that moment, especially since subproposal 11, which aimed to eliminate NSPORT's dependence on GNG, ended in failure. Wugapodes also had to cherrypick a DRv which suited his conclusion (that NSPORTS doesn't necessarily require GNG) while ignoring others that did not (1, 2, 3). That part of the closure needs to be amended. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ping Amakuru and JoelleJay who raised the issue in the closer's talk page. Avilich (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  But that statement contradicts the policy itself which reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. I think it's obvious that the policy document itself should supersede the FAQ. NemesisAT (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No 'policy' says that. The very purpose of the FAQ is to clarify ambiguities in the main text, so it supersedes any isolated sentence that just so happened to escape scrutiny. The FAQ is the result of years of RfCs and consensus building, and it is clearly the FAQ which reflects the ultimate spirit of the guideline. Avilich (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on your interpretation of the FAQ and personally perfer to go with what the guideline, and WP:N actually say. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is about NSPORT, not N. Avilich (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The part of the guideline Nemesis is quoting doesn't even apply to determining notability or whether a subject merits an article: it is essentially equivalent to the instructions at AfC requiring assertions of notability be sourced, which is not necessarily the same as actually demonstrating notability. For subjects strictly under GNG (and failing ANYBIO), to be accepted at AfC a claim to notability must be supported by SIGCOV in multiple IRS: they have to show they meet GNG from the start. But NSPORT SSG-meeting subjects can be accepted with a claim to notability sourced only to an RS verifying they meet the SSG. That doesn't mean the subject is notable, it just means they don't need to demonstrate they meet GNG immediately (and in practice, don't need to until notability is actually challenged). For NSPORT, this sourcing requirement is also applied to all articles, not just ones that go through AfC. @Isaacl maybe could provide more info on this. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What a bizzare and contrived way to interpret that sentence. Of course the first paragraph in an SNG applies to determining notability, that's what SNGs are for. Another sentence in the lead, Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). again suggests that notability can be presumed if a subject meets GNG or NSPORTS by suggesting that notability does not need to be established in other ways if NSPORTS is met. NemesisAT (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence states This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. This establishes the notability criteria as being GNG, with NSPORT SSGs helping to predict which subjects will meet GNG. How do you interpret that sentence? In particular the part where it says "and thus merit an article"? Or the part in the third sentence where it says then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article? Why does this link to GNG and nowhere else, and why does it say the inclusion criteria?

The second sentence is describing the sourcing requirements for an article to be in mainspace without being speedily deleted or rejected from AfC. That's not a "bizarre and contrived" interpretation, that's literally what that sentence was intended to mean.

The consensus is and has been that NSPORT presumes GNG notability but does not supersede it, and that the presumption is rebuttable. It takes extreme levels of WP:IDHT to ignore the result of the 2017 RfC, the entire purpose of the successful NOLY RfC, the explicit rationale behind the deletion of hundreds of SSG-meeting athletes, and the stated reason for upholding numerous DRVs. Claiming the guideline is just "internally inconsistent" means you have to ignore that overwhelming precedent as well as the several places in NSPORT where prediction of GNG is described, like the entirety of the FAQs (which haven't been challenged in 5 years). JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close, are pretty badly flawed (it was not a very good close). For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies, which most of the subjects covered by NSPORTS actually are. It should instead refer to NBASIC. Likewise, sports organizations should be meeting the (stricter) NORG requirements- a GNG pass is not, by site-wide policy, enough. "Both sides" of these NSPORTS disputes are so far up a rabbit hole, IMO, that it is difficult for an "outsider" even to understand what went wrong - bot-like creation of unsourced articles has been allowed to result in some highly motivated reasoning about Notability, when the actual problem is much more of a WP:MEATBOT issue, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The FAQs, while they derived from the 2017 RfC close Uh no they were not. They predated that RfC by about 4 years, and reflect the consensus present from very early on that NSPORT predicts GNG.

For one thing, they constantly refer to the "GNG", which does not apply to biographies Where does it say GNG doesn't apply to biographies??? Just because there's a link to a people-specific SNG doesn't mean GNG can't apply, especially when BASIC itself links to the GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize; you are right about the first thing; I have been holding the RfC close responsible for the misleading FAQ language, when it is much more likely that the misleading FAQ language helped skew the 2017 RfC.

For the second thing, where in WP:NBIO do you get the idea that the GNG applies to biographies, as some kind of underlying or alternative standard? That isn't what a see also reference means, nor is it backed up anywhere else in the guidelines AFAIK. The way NBIO is written, if someone wanted to argue that a biography meets the GNG though not NBASIC (say because IND is more strictly laid out in the latter guideline) then that argument should be given no weight, in the same way that, if someone argued that a publication passed NBOOK but not someone's idiosyncratic GNG exegesis, the latter argument for deletion would cut no weight either. NBASIC clearly supercedes the GNG for biographies in the same way that NORG does for companies. I thought this was clear enough from WP:N and NBIO themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, there are thousands of biography AfDs that not only did not appeal to NBASIC or ANYBIO, but which explicitly hinged on whether the subject met GNG. Again, where do you see that GNG is always prohibited from applying to biographies? JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on the quality of AfD discussions. The fact remains, though, that in 95%+ of cases there is no appreciable difference between the GNG and NBASIC - that doesn't change the fact that it is NBASIC that applies to biographies. The GNG can't apply in those cases any more than it can for books or for organizations (and yes, I've seen contributors cite the GNG in book AfDs and SIGCOV in ORG AfDs - that doesn't change the fact that neither is strictly relevant in those instances). This is the simple logic of these guidelines, and is quite straightforwardly presented on the relevant pages IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is this exclusion of GNG straightforwardly presented? And how does that track with the multiple SNGs that explicitly defer to GNG/require equivalent sourcing? Are you genuinely claiming we must ignore the parts of an SNG that explicitly state its subjects can also be notable through meeting GNG, like WP:NPROF; or where the SNG defines itself specifically as a way to explain how the general notability guideline applies to its subjects, like WP:NFILM; or an SNG that ultimately requires GNG, like WP:NSPORT and WP:NWEB; or any SNG where the criteria are virtually identical to those of the GNG, e.g. requiring independent sources that provide in-depth information about the [subject]? JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've made myself understood (based on this reply), so I will try again. SNGs certainly can attempt to predict or defer to the GNG, but not all do. WP:NBASIC is one of the ones that does not. So on the face of it, what the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT did for athletes was to carve out an exceptional set of biographies to which the GNG rather than NBASIC is the relevant standard. This is silly, though, and incompatible with WP:CONLEVEL, and I can't imagine, for the small number of cases affected by the difference (mostly matters where NBASIC is stricter about independent sourcing), that anyone actually intended that the GNG standards apply rather than NBASIC.

In strict parallel to this, the 2017-2022 version of NSPORT also apparently intended to carve sports leagues out of NORG requirements and apply only the much looser GNG standards to them. Some people may actually have intended or desired this, but I would argue that the idea still runs afoul of WP:CONLEVEL. I would even go as far as to say that the current NORG carve-out for sports teams should be rethought (apparently they only need to meet GNG standards, but I can't imagine that this was anyone's thought through intention, either) - but because this is explicit in NORG, it would require some new consensus to eliminate the carveout.

So of course I am not saying that all SNGs are hermetically sealed from the GNG, which would be absurd. Some operate quite differently (GEOLAND, and in another sense NORG and NNUMBER), while others defer to it (NWEB) and others replace it while maintaining a very similar structure (NBOOK, NFILM and NBASIC). Some allow parallel paths - NPROF allows NBASIC as an alternative, for example. But what I am saying is that for SNGs that do structurally replace the GNG, typically by specifying criteria on similar principles (NORG, NNUMBER, NBASIC, NBOOK, and NFILM, notably), there is no recourse "outside" that SNG back into the GNG, unless explicitly carved out. Since there is no carveout for athletes in NBASIC, it - not the GNG - therefore applies to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The controversy isn't about the RFC closure but its implementation, whether that should happen immediately or whether the guidelines are changed once a suitable replacement is formed. It's not stonewalling to stop an edit war, it's trying to rein in the chaos and if it happens again, I expect there will be blocks handed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To clarify, Muboshgu wasn't stonewalling when they protected the page. The stonewalling was by the editors who were reverting attempts to implement the consensus, rather than attempting to address any inconsistencies or other issues (such as a need for copy editing) that resulted from its implementation.BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Liz Well, part of it is about the closure. The closing statement for #1, despite having probably the correct outcome, is a gross mischaracterization of the proposal, the arguments, and the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT, and it absolutely needs to be amended. The claim that the proposal aimed to introduce a requirement for GNG is completely false, but he uses this definition and the fact #1 only got 55% numerical support as evidence that the interpretation of NSPORT that the subproposal references is not in fact consensus. To support his case he then specifically cites one DRV that was not brought up in the subproposal discussion (and did not even attest to any interpretive consensus) while deliberately ignoring the dozens of appropriate AfD/DRV examples that were actually mentioned there (and which did explicitly state NSPORT interpretation consensus). He additionally misrepresents a select quotation from NSPORT as if it was the only textual backing for the proposal's interpretation offered by supporters, and then tears it down with the specious assertion that the guideline doesn't include certain wording -- all while neglecting to acknowledge the comprehensive rebuttals to identical claims made within the discussion, including multiple examples of other textual support, including one with the exact wording he said was lacking. All of this, coupled with his history of unfamiliarity with the guideline followed by hostile rejection of the (again, reaffirmed-many-times-over consensus) interpretation of NSPORT in a very demeaning response(*) at a prior RfC (which itself confirmed consensus!), demands quite a bit more scrutiny of this close than what has been suggested so far.

  (*)

  Your comment is based on multiple false premises. NSPORT specifically requires article subjects meet GNG This is so false I suspect you haven't actually read NSPORT or N. To quote the big bold text at the top of NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (emphasis original). You incorrectly interpret policy on the talk page of that policy, and yet you seem to think that making more and more restrictive rules will improve compliance? Call me suspicious.

  JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think this was a difficult close and a difficult discussion. The RfC is titled "Abolish the current version of NSPORTS" and subsequent proposals largely attempted to narrow the discussion. The vast majority of editors did not support that initial proposal. The challenge became, as the closer mentioned, "most editors lost interest" in the sub-proposals and there was no initial discussion/survey on what the community actually thinks is a problem with NSPORT. Some editors expressed concerns that there are too many articles about sportspeople, others expressed concern that there are too many stubs based solely on databases, and the initial proposer stated that a problem was that too many editors at AFD just say passes N(insert sport) without examining the actual sources used. Because there were differing understandings of the problem (and the scope of those problems), the sub-proposals were all over the place. Each sub-proposal sought to address what one editor thought would address the problem or as a potential compromise to a previous sub-proposal. These sub-proposals, if adopted, may or may not work well together. My issue with the close is that closer saw all of the sub-proposals as discrete discussions and not how they interacted with each other. An example of this is the closer's discussion of proposal 4. If Proposal 3 were to reach consensus, proposal 4 should not be closed as "no consensus" but closed as moot. Similarly, I don't think the closer considered whether editors would still support proposal 3 if proposal 5 were to pass or what implications if any the two proposals have with each other and the SNG as a whole. I also agree with comments that the close did not anticipate implementation problems or propose tentative ways forward that could unite the community. --Enos733 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is the complaint I made regarding subproposal 1 on the talk page before being pointed to this discussion. I outlined the closing statement's total misrepresentation of subproposal 1, the existing consensus on NSPORT, and the consensus (or lack thereof) within the subproposal discussion. I am deeply concerned that the closing statement's faulty evaluation of NSPORT's purpose/consensus interpretation could be used to rewrite NSPORT as entirely independent of GNG (or at least strongly encourage its interpretation as such), when the proposal that actually aimed to do that completely failed. I would ask BilledMammal to please reconsider his endorse in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The closing of proposal 5 with removing the "from inceptioin part" is not what the proposer meant and what the people were voting for. Therefore such radical change of the essential part of the proposal seems as a supervote. Also proposal three seems as a clear no consensus to me, especially if we compare it with an original proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The whole RfC was flawed from the beginning, when notifications to NSPORTS projects were labelled as canvassing in an attempt to bring in partisan editors. The whole thing grew out of control into a monster walls of text, including constant replies and questioning on every comment by a couple of users who were working to push it through (BilledMammal has 128 comments and RandomCanadian 66). The whole thing reeks of setting out to destroy NSPORTS (and if not manage to completely remove, to seriously gut and maim), and not to improve it. --SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There were also attempts to stonewall by complaining of a lack of legitimacy when "no new notice to the impacted sports projects" for the times new subproposals were created in the same discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • To be fair, some of the apparent discrepancy between the consensus (or not) on the original proposal and the consensus (or not) on various subproposals might be explained if editors had !voted on the original proposal before other proposals were added. I don't see any real attempt by the closer to evaluate this question, but it seems a fairly fundamental flaw in the RfC process - I don't find it reasonable to expect editors to watchlist and recheck every RfC to which they contribute. In RfCs on other subjects, I have seen participating editors explicitly pinged when additional options or questions were added, if they contributed to a prior state of the question(s), but I didn't see any evidence of that in my skim of this RfC. FWIW, I am uninvolved in the RfC/subject area: while I read the close thoroughly (many passages more than once), I have only skimmed the original bludgeoning chaos discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the accusation of bludgeoning is appropriate. I made less comments than other editors, and RandomCanadian made around the same number of comments as many other editors. Further, most of the comments made by myself and other editors with high comments was not to argue against other positions in response to the proposals, but in response to general discussions, to ask for clarification, to clarify ones own position, and more. Finally, it is always appropriate to raise concerns about canvassing, even if not all editors agree that it is canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think the closer did the best job they could, but the sheer number of subproposals in an RfC of that size is going to be problematic. It's fair to say that in a discussion the length of a novel subproposal #5 of #10 probably isn't going to get as much scrutiny as it should for a contentious change of this magnitude. Hut 8.5 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe there was consensus in favour of proposal 3, and this is the one that has the biggest ramifications – i.e. the removal of most of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS, leaving many sportseople with no SNG. I would like to see this part of the close overturned to no consensus, or at the very least, reopened and reclosed by a panel. Number 57 08:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The whole RfC was a rambling mess that initially had lots of contributors, but then tailed-off into 12 different proposals. I think it is very hard to come to a firm consensus taking into account all of the initial discussion along with the later sub-proposals and how editors would agree with a certain proposal only if another one failed. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Mostly endorse - the close was a very good summary of the discussions that took place, and also reflective of the broad consensus of the community dating back to the 2017 RFCs which established the prior guideline. My one objection, as alluded to by Alivich above, is that in finding no consensus for proposal #1, the closer has misrepresented the status quo ante. The 2017 RFCs clearly established the need for sports bios to meet GNG, this requirement has never been repealed, and nor should it be repealed through a discussion which resulted in no consensus. While some AFDs and DRVs may fail to adhere to this principle, many others (again, as noted by Avilich) followed exactly that principle, deleting articles which met NSPORTS but did not appear to meet GNG. The goal should be to crystallize the guidelines so that DRVs which don't match guidelines, like the one the Wugapodes linked to in their close summary, do not occur again. I have to say, the attempt by some editors to cast doubt on this close (without even having brought it here for review themselves) through edit warring the changes made and dismissing the whole RFC as a "rambling mess" is not what I consider good etiquette. WP:DROPTHESTICK already - the community has spoken, and the NSPORT guidelines as we've known them are going to be changed. This is long overdue anyway IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - in hindsight, given the scope and size of the RFC, a panel should probably have closed - and then, like I have suggested multiple times, actually implement the close. Letting the community do it is clearly not working. There has been an edit war and the page is now protected to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 10:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with Black Kite below that the close of #3 was probably wrong. There was consensus for NSPORTS to be tightened, but not for sports to be entirely removed. GiantSnowman 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This was difficult to close as it was (as mentioned above) a big rambling mess, but I have to say that I can't see consensus for Proposal 3 - it's not far off 50-50. Also, one thing that seems to have escaped a lot of people in that discussion is that the "one professional appearance" criteria is actually designed to prevent lots and lots of stubs - removing it could ironically increase the number, as there will be plenty of players who have only ever played in semi-professional leagues who have coverage ... Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I may be wrong, but your comment here suggests you may be missing the point of these changes. The goal is not to "prevent lots and lots of stubs", it is merely to remove stubs where no significant sourcing exists and which can therefore never be expanded into any sort of sizeable article. If someone from the semi-professional leagues has coverage, then they meet our definition of notability and are eligible for an article (or at the very least a paragraph somewhere per WP:NOPAGE), while if a professional player does not have any coverage at all then they should not have one, irrespective of which league they play in. This principle applies pretty much across the whole project, and the change brought about by this RFC merely reaffirms that it applies to sports people too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Amakuru, and would add that I don't believe I've ever seen NSPORTS used as Black Kite suggests it has been used - to support the deletion of an article that would otherwise meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  It hasn't been used in that way because that would go against what is written at WP:N, which states that notability is presumed on passing either an SNG or GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is again entirely missing the point regarding NSPORT and GNG. NSPORT explicitly does ultimately require GNG (as do many other SNGs, for example NCORP or NASTRO), as affirmed in 2017 and re-affirmed here. People ignoring that is those people's problem and maybe a lack of clarity issue. But it's not one where the guidelines are contradictory - unless you deliberately attempt to interpret them as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  You've missed the point of the comment and my reply. Even if a subject fails an SNG it can still be presumed notable under GNG, that was what I was pointing out. NemesisAT (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm missing the point, because the proposal dealing with the issue of insufficient sourcing is Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about; I'm talking about Subproposal 3, the appearances SNG. It's all very well saying that someone "with coverage meets our definition of notability"; but we're talking about the minutiae of sports coverage here. The prof appearances SNG was designed to at least stem the flow of badly-sourced bios which might have marginal notability through providing a specific metric. Black Kite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Subproposal 5, which clearly did have consensus, and no-one is complaining about Some people are definitely complaining about it -- there's one such comment above. --JBL (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This analysis seems flawed. The close explained very well why it wasn't a headcount – arguments citing lack of replacement were given less weight because the replacement guideline already exists at GNG (also SPORTCRIT and BASIC) – and NSPORT participation criteria have not routinely served the described function. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with Amakuru. It would be great if the unfortunate characterization in the close of proposal 1 could be amended. --JBL (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say I thought that Wugapodes was brave to take on the RfC to try and close it himself. Maybe a new user group needs to be added to wikipedia, one that deals with editing policy/guideline project pages. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closure accurately reflects consensus on a very complex series of proposals and counter proposals. Wugapodes should be commended for taking this on.

The problem is not with the closure, but with the next step - figuring out how to implement consensus on such a complex series of proposals. That will probably take some follow-up RFC’s. There is no rush. Take it slowly and deliberately. We will get there eventually. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Someone probably wants to tell User:BilledMammal that, given their editing pattern on the policy pages and bludgeoning of AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Fernandez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Lablache) from pretty much the moment the RfC was closed. WP:NOHURRY. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, the bludgeoning has been from the beginning of the RfC, including accusing editors of canvassing when they notified the affected WikiProjects (which is funny now that their tune is "there was an RfC that everyone could attend so if you didn't that's your problem".) --SuperJew (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS an invalid argument at AfD" is not exactly the poster child of neutral notification (given the rather alarmist title, despite the rest)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Note that I was a participant in the discussion. I'm not seeing the consensus on subproposal three and feel that one should have been no consensus. That being said I think overall the closer has done a good job given the complexity of the discussion. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (involved in the RFC), mostly I think it was a good close, but I just do not see how proposal three had a consensus and suggest that one be overturned (to "no consensus"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/Endorse Mostly the close seems fine, although a few elements (subproposal 1, mostly, as argued) might need a few corrections. The issue around proposal 3 mostly seems to have been lack of clarity around its implementation (the close seems procedurally fine, and the reasoning is well explained, and there is nothing preventing closers from giving less weight to some arguments when they are not very persuasive); and maybe a bit of an adverse reaction to the edit warring. I've attempted to move towards a constructive non-confrontational resolution to that on the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Implementing_the_RfC_-_participation_criteria_-_interim_status), so hopefully that should give a pause to such concerns. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse I think that it was a good close. The fact that comments above ranged from "too cautious" to "not cautious enough" reinforces that. The inevitable challenges are not related to the close and are two-fold:

  A result that many people won't like. It's only human that some might wiki-lawyer nit-pick it. Others could do various things to prevent or mire down implementation.

  Implementation is much more complex because the subject wording is embedded in many many places in the guideline.

Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)(talk • contribs)

• Comment terrible close, way too many discussions open, and BilledMammal and RandomCanadian dominated discussion with hundreds of comments to push their pointed agenda. There was no consensus from the community, there was push back against sports users commenting. The whole thing was a joke and should be overturned and handled in a completely different way going forward.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of attempting to belittle other editors as fanatics with a pointed agenda and dismiss the whole thing as a joke, you'd better stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and instead attempt to back-up your assertions with facts. Problem is, once you do look at those facts, what you are saying is about as utterly ridiculous as it gets. The page statistics are incomplete (as this was moved part-way through); but extrapolating a bit, and looking at the amount of added bytes (instead of the raw number of edits, which can give misleading impressions due to various factors), there is no single editor or group of editors who overwhelmed the discussion (between the time the page was moved and when it was closed, the page size grew from 350ish kb to nearly 850kb, but the top 10 editors (including editors who were very much opposed to the proposal, like Bagumba or Nfitz, or more moderate, like Cbl), only contributed, all 10 together, to less than half of that... In light of that, your comment seems more like a generic grievance against the idea of the RfC as a whole (and probably it's result) than an actual valid reason why the close would be incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for pinging me User:RandomCanadian, when you raised me at AN - I only just saw this. Personally, I didn't even read the last few weeks about it - it jumped the shark after about the 4th proposal - and the argument that there should be no notification to those at NSPORTS and related projects because they might be biased was very bizarre, and should alone have voided the entire process; I see no consensus on any of it, merely a handful trying to push a minority position through bludgeoning. Though that would be an opinion, and you and I were not the ones asked to contribute to this discussion - which you all seem to be bludgeoning none-the-less. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Nfitz: You've commented more in this closure review than RandomCanadian (nine comments to eight). Neither of you are bludgeoning, though, as neither of you are dominating the conversation or replying to most comments. However, WP:BLUDGEON does state To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided and I would suggest you are more cautious when making such accusations in the future - I also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashion London where you accuse me of bludgeoning for making two comments. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a very disingenuous count, User:BilledMammal, as there is only a single post from me about the review - which didn't even take a position, merely noted that the review should be by those uninvolved. The other posts were in a separate sub-thread about freezing NSPORTS until the review was finished - which also entirely neutral. Though I hadn't intended to single out RC; I'll adjust my pronoun. To be honest there is similar from all sides. It's a systemic problem that those at a review spend more time arguing the case, than reviewing the close - DRV is plagued with such issues. Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Considering only this section, at the time of my previous comment you had two comments and RandomCanadian had four - neither of you are bludgeoning. Even editors with higher post counts, such as NemesisAT (seven) are not bludgeoning. However, you are too quick to accuse editors that you disagree with of bludgeoning, as are some of the other editors in this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (took part in subproposal 1 and 5, came from WP:NSPORTS talk). I believe the close reflected the rough consensus (or lackthereof) at the RfC, and I think North8000's comment helps explain why the close is being challenged. I just read subproposal 3 in its integrality, and while the split is 60-40 to support the proposal without looking at the arguments, the judgement by the closer to give little weight to "no replacement"-type votes, because they are not substantial but procedural in nature, is in my opinion valid. When taken together, as the closer correctly asserts, proposals 3 and 4 show a community consensus to dispense with participation-based criteria. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I also note a strong WikiProject Football turnout in this discussion due to this discussion, referenced above. To all future editors, kindly disclose where you came from if you participate in this discussion and whether you previously participated in the RfC. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I also agree that editors at this review need to disclose whether they were involved or not. Those who "got what they wanted" would be happy with the results, and those who opposed the results would be unhappy. This review needs a lot more uninvolved users to take a look. Sorry, to follow my own disclosure ask: I heard about this RfC from the NFL WikiProject, but did not participate in the RfC. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a clear consensus to do things to stop flooding Wikipedia with substandard articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think "clear consensus" is a bit of a stretch. Also, you ought to disclose your (very significant) involvement in the discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved) Main issue I see with the close is with Subproposal 3, described as a "rough consensus". I believe this should be overturned as no consensus. The RfC was an unwieldy mess and the bludgeoning by those seeking to abolish NSPORTS may well have discouraged those with an opposing view from participating. Jevansen (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (uninvolved in the RfC) Seconding Jevansen - I was definately deterred from bothering to participate due to the bludgeoning by BilledMammal and (less so) by RandomCanadian - from the claims at the beginning of notifying WikiProjects being canvassing and bringing partisan editors, through the bludgeoning in the discussion itself, and also due to past interactions with them on AfDs which they've exhibited similar patterns. --SuperJew (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Uninvolved with the RfC, but very much involved in WikiProject Tennis discussions on this matter, so only partially uninvolved, alas. Pilaz (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse- The most important part of the RfC, namely that database scrapes != biographies, plainly gained consensus because the remaining objections were procedural rather than substantial in nature. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I occasionally post at WT:FOOTY , but did not take part in the RfC. As mentioned above, my only issue with the RfC close is Subproposal 3, which I do not believe has consensus (it's around 55-45%, which isn't really enough on numbers to divert away from the status quo, but also that a number of the Support !votes there appeared to be under the incorrect impression that an SNG confers automatic notability, which it clearly doesn't). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, most people not engaged in writing one-line substubs already understand this. It's the defenders of such gunk who treat meeting their own SNG that tend to claim that SNG pass = automatic notability and unchallengeable exemption from sourcing requirements. At some point, when you're confronted with people who keep misinterpreting what SNG/SNG actually say at one AfD after another, you eventually decide, "Bugger it, we'll just redo the SNG." Reyk _YO! 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Evidence from AFD suggests that any views on SNGs similar to those described by BK are most common in those opposing these proposals. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm assuming good faith here (it's been a few months), but you did indeed participate in the RfC: Special:Diff/1066711996, Special:Diff/1067298946. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I count seven comments, including four !votes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good grief, I am clearly losing it in my old age and had completely forgotten that was the same RfC. Struck. Thanks for pointing it out. You will note that I was actually against the concept of SNGs in general, though, so I don't have an axe to grind about Prop.3. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  From my count proposal 3 had a numerical count of 28 support to 22 oppose. However, at least one oppose was procedural (issues with not having a replacement), 1 oppose was changed to neutral and seemed to only oppose grandfathering in exceptions to #3, and 2 opposes were on the basis that this proposal didn't go far enough -- which is antithetical to the intent of the bulk of oppose !votes and should not be counted with them. There were also at least 3 comments that were supportive. So that leaves us with 28-18 at worst and 35-18 at best if we want to count opposes and comments. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Although uninvolved in the discussion, I agree with other editor's concerns above about the process of the RfC, particularly SuperJew and Jevansen - the discussion was an "unwieldy mess", the constant walls of text make it very difficult to follow, and the constant addition of sub-proposals surely didn't help either, which, alongside the bizarre accusations of WP:CANVASS and the seeming bludgeoning of the debate all surely limited participation from the WP:SPORTS community in a way that is not helpful for reaching a broad consensus on the matter. I also agree that the closer was incorrect to close subproposal #3 as a consensus, when there was a roughly-even split of !votes, and would support closing as no consensus or a reopening of the discussion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the implementation of proposal 3, the consensus was rough and the discussion much less well attended than proposal 1. The whole RFC was substantially expanded midway into many proposals which made it a trainwreck when people who had voiced their opinion at proposal 1 would have assumed that their participation had been enough. There was also substantial bludgeoning which put off good faith editors. I think I made 1 comment at proposal 3 or it may have been at proposal 1. The solution in my opinion is to allow each wikiproject to craft their own sng and if there is goodfaith opposition then have a seperate RFC for each one rather than slamming them all into one RFC which would be another trainwreck. Also leaving it to the noisiest editors at the WP:NSPORTS talkpage is just a recipe for another edit war, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good idea! Let's allow ask each WikiProject to create SNGs on their own, so that they can make them as extensive as possible in order to make everyone notable. Let's just hope that WikiProject Royalty and Nobility doesn't make their SNG so broad that the daughters of cadet branches of minor lords who die in infancy suddenly become notable! Pilaz (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Or we could assume good faith and realise that also most editors form WikiProjects want to include notable players on Wikipedia. If you follow football articles and AfDs you'll see that in almost all cases of a player scraping through NFOOTY, but not passing GNG, the article is deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Difficult to close, yes, but also the truest type of consensus discussion, which is truly about discussion, compromise, and meeting the legitimate concerns of others. I think, substantively, the entire analysis does represent the consensus position, in which a very large number of editors participated, expressed concerns, and tried to reach compromises. Wugapodes's analysis seems to have correctly extracted the parts editors agreed on the most. That doesn't mean everyone agreed on them, and different people will disagree on different parts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Closer comment I appreciate the comments so far, though like others I was hoping for more input from uninvolved editors. So far the concerns seem focused on proposals 1 and 3. The concern with the close of proposal 1 seems to center around whether the result of a 2017 RfC should still be considered controlling in light of the no-consensus close, and whether the close should be revised to reflect that. The concern with the close of proposal 3 is whether the consensus result accurately reflects the discussion. Further discussion from uninvolved editors would be helpful in revising the close and determining next steps. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think the community has finished talking about this. The close of this RfC needs to be understood as the staging point that will lead to a more focused attempt at progress. The community is not happy about sports notability. Personally, I feel that the RfC outcome as determined by Wugapodes reflects the nose count but is hard to reconcile with our strict rules about sourcing biographies of living people.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Request The review was a request, particularly from uninvolved editors. Yet what I see is a lot of comments from involved editors - including ones that bludgeoned the RFC itself. Is there a way to tag those who are involved (perhaps by striking), to better understand what uninvolved editors think? (I'm involved). Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Closer comment I have revised the close of proposal 1 to clarify the reasoning and suggest next steps on how to resolve the propblem of how to interpret the relationship between NSPORTS and the GNG. Editors here are split on proposal 3 variously endorsing it or saying it should be overturned to no consensus. Further review or a close of this discussion by uninvolved editors would be helpful in resolving that aspect of the close. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Since no 'uninvolved editors' have commented further on this, I'll say that I endorse Pilaz's analysis of closure 3: the procedural arguments ("no replacement") discounted, there was a clear consensus for the current outcome, which already had a majority supporting it anyway. Avilich (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for reevaluation of subproposal 1 closing statement

Following several unfruitful discussions at Wugapodes' talk page, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to please review the subproposal 1 closing statement with respect to the following:

1. What Wugapodes asserts is the purpose of proposal 1 (whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG) versus the context and stated intent of the proposal (All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD).

2. His assessment of overall !voter sentiment, and specifically whether we should assume all opposition (re: The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding) is to his version of proposal 1 whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG or to the proposed restriction of when notability is challenged at AfD. I would like to point to this comment by an oppose !voter to challenge the assumption that !voters were unaware of the distinction between the two: There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now"

3. How faithfully the rest of his statement reflects the status quo ante consensus interpretation of NSPORT as discussed in the proposal, including whether his conclusions are accurate given the strength of the arguments. I would appreciate particular attention to his invoking one undiscussed DRV outcome while ignoring all of those brought up in the discussion, and his claim that the NSPORT guideline only says subjects "should" and not "must" meet GNG without acknowledging that multiple editors in the discussion had pointed out a place where NSPORT does say "must".

4. Whether the existence of proposal 11, Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, implying the current NSPORT guideline is in fact dependent on GNG, should be entirely disregarded as evidence of a pre-existing consensus.

5. The merits of his conclusion that a) all opposition to proposal 1 was opposition to his version of the proposal scope, and therefore was a direct rejection of the interpretation of NSPORT that places it ultimately subordinate to GNG; b) the ~35–45% opposition to proposal 1 means the above interpretation was not the consensus before the RfC; and c) that opposition is sufficient to overturn a consensus if it was in place beforehand.

6. Whether it appropriate for him, despite acknowledging majority support, to unilaterally fail part 1 of subproposal 8 (Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG.) on the basis The first part was substantially similar to proposal 1. ... To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that. Was his assessment that this proposal and proposal 1 are materially equivalent accurate given the proposals' wording/arguments and in the context of the existing NSPORT text? JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd encourage editors to read through my talk page where I've answered various iterations of these complaints. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Apologies for any formatting issues, I'm on mobile at work) I very much appreciate the substantial amendments Wugapodes made to his close, however I still strongly dispute equating opposition to the proposal with opposition to the select interpretation of it he has ascribed to oppose !voters (that is, that they were specifically against the premise of GNG (already) being ultimately required) when that was NOT what most !voters understood the proposal to be. A closer should not be assigning intent to ambiguous !votes, especially if it is then used to justify weakening a statement that was not even under review. Only 15 out of 70+ !votes were even ambiguous enough to possibly be interpreted as opposing the GNG requirement itself, that is very far from a "no consensus" on that question! JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Process questions

A few editors raised process-related questions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that are going to come back up regardless of how this is closed. It would help to have some admin eyes on the page to make sure that folks are raising legitimate concerns rather than stonewalling.

1. Which changes are to be implemented immediately and which require further discussion? Should we delete participation-based criteria immediately or wait until replacements have been agreed on? Should this decision be left to the relevant wikiprojects?
2. Is there consensus to "gut" or heavily trim sections of NSPORTS? Is this constructive, disruptive or a back-door attempt to abolish the guideline?
3. Who may implement the changes that have consensus? Must it be the closer? May it be editors who were heavily involved in the discussion? Should it be someone who's completely uninvolved? Is the closer obligated to oversee the process? –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on these. (1) Generally changes should be implemented as quickly as possible, but not necessarily immediately if there turn out to be practical problems. For the participation-based criteria specifically, if a wikiproject is actively working on replacements then it might make sense to wait for that, but in general any future replacements can just be added back later since either way they'd need consensus to implement. (2) Yes. Participants in the general discussion pointed out that while the guideline as a whole should not be deprecated, problems with the guideline should be fixed through editing and rewriting. (3) In my experience anyone has been able to implement RfC closures, but that seems to have failed here. How we fix that is a useful point of discussion. I'm willing to help oversee the implementation (regardless of the review outcome), but I think the more help from uninvolved editors here the better. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• In regards to the process questions, yes, implement immediately (unless there was literally a replacement being discussed atm) - because GNG will always be available, so it's not a case where we'd be severing entirely. While it's a major re-write, it still leaves significant aspects present, and guidance for further re-writes. As to implementation, usually it can be anyone, with a preference for the closer, but in controversial aspects like this, perhaps best to go for an uninvolved individual(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As someone that spends a sizeable amount of my time here helping out at ANRFC, the idea a precedent would be set where closers are in any way responsible for implementing or overseeing changes outside of admin action-required closes (like deletion discussions) seems very bad to me. Editors failing to follow WP:BRD (or in other words, seek consensus if their edits are getting reverted) in this case does not mean the closer needs to come in and supervise. Other dispute resolution processes are available, even if one would feel they're heavy-handed right after an RfC. Right now it seems like many supporters of the previous NSPORTS version before the RfC wish to re-litigate it, but I'm sure that's just the pain that comes with removing a band-aid rather than a serious concern that will continue over weeks. FOOTY seem to be coming around to a more constructive mindset, for example. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Involved in the RfC, mere IP user (obvs).) Strongly agree with the observation about setting a bad precedent. And a tremendously ad hoc one, too: I don't recall anyone suggesting ahead of time or even during the process that the closer would single-handedly have such a responsibility, and that anyone else doing so would constitute an entitlement to revert to the "last good version" (... that a community decision has just determined is not the "good version"). Or they'd be insulted on their talk page for their trouble. Or that a "panel" would be required to do such a thing. Or that any change needs a huge supermajority -- one not evinced in NSPORT's original adoption. I won't presume to know the motivations behind such actions, but their consequences seem highly unlikely to be constructive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that User:Muboshgu was heavily involved, and should not have protected the page.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  S Marshall, pardon? How so? I have not commented on the RfC, I have not involved myself in that debate in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  • • I apologize wholeheartedly and retract that. I had you confused with someone else.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• On the question of creating new SSG guidance I feel like there needs to be an aggressive but reasonable timeframe put forth for the projects to put this in place - maybe April 15 or 30. To do this thoughtfully and based on data takes time and we are all volunteers so not like folks are putting in 40 hours a week on this. I also think we need to clarify up front what the approval process is for the new criteria. I would very much like to suggest that uninvolved editors be brought in to review any new proposed SSG criteria. As a mostly sports editor I am very willing to have non-sports folks evaluate the criteria but for many folks who were active in the discussion I can no longer assume good faith based on their words and actions in that RfC. That group should not have the "final say" on the SSG criteria - it is not a neutral body. To have input, of course, is reasonable. Rikster2 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with AGF and some users, then you should either A) read WP:ABF and get some fresh WP:TROUT from your favourite provider or B) add an "I" to WP:AN and open a thread there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, if you come out of the blocks with an RfC titled "Abolish NSPORTS" (not "reform," or "substantially reduce" but "abolish), or if you restated your point and over 140 times at the RfC (just at that page, it was split out many times over many pages so the number is much higher), or if you spend the majority of your Wikipedia life at AfD and vote delete nearly every time (often with a demonstrated lack of WP:BEFORE), then you forfeited your right to be seen as an independent actor in this. I am not saying that sports project's proposals should not be reviewed. I am just saying that the folks who put so much effort into getting rid of the guidance shouldn't be the majority of the final arbiters of the new standards that are meant to truly reflect GNG. You guys are as biased as the permastub kings. I am just suggesting that knowledgeable, unaffiliated editors ought to play a big part in implementation if at all possible. Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rikster2 you've linked JPL's stats (which, if I was ABFing like you, I would have to conclude was deliberate misdirection), and both you and him appear to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, to which I frankly wish to have no part in. Take it to the WP:CESSPIT if you wish to keep casting WP:ASPERSIONS about others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  At this point, I am just going to reiterate my request to have independent unaffiliated editors be the ones to sign off on any new SSG recommendations. This was a reasonable request and is a genuine area of concern for me and for others. I think it's pretty obvious why. Also, no misdirection. I linked what I intended to link. I didn't say those were your contributions, if that is what you are implying. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your request is moot since, if agreement on consensus cannot be reached, discussions will get closed by an uninvolved 3rd party. Having said that, you do give the impression of wanting non subject matter experts to assess and adjudicate on the proposals, bypassing wider community scrutiny involving those you have issues with, which simply isn't going to happen. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  You are being absurd as I have said nothing of the sort. What I am asking for is Wikipedia editors who understand notability and can gauge if an SSG meets it but who have not already expressed a depply held opinion that sports notability is "a problem" to be the decision-making body. I have a legitimate concern that I and others will put in a good amount of time and energy crafting new guidelines in good faith and if the audience that has to agree to it is 100% the same as the one who proposed "abolishing NSPORTS" (or voted to affirm that original recommendation) then that is pretty unfair - there should be fresh eyes on it. I have said (more than once if you care to read) that all should be able to comment. Rikster2 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Again, decisions are made by consensus, not "decision-making bodies"; closer(s) will only evaluate consensus, not any proposed criteria. If we have what you still appear to be requesting, we'd probably end up with another RFC proposing the abolition of NSPORT pretty rapidly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  You were replying to me, and while my guess is that it was an innocent mistake/lack of clarity, it's still not a very productive kind of comment nor a good way to move things forward, if you argue that some editors are so biased as to be unable to provide a balanced take on things - again, this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's better if everyone is invited to take part in building a new compromise if the previous situation was not acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that action that really needs review is the locking of the page.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why? There were six experienced editors edit-warring on a policy page. Locking it was absolutely correct. I suppose the admin could have partial blocked them all, but then someone else might have come along and carried it on. Absolutely correct decision, and I would have done the same myself. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Another option, that's not a "pox on all your houses" option, would have been to warn the editors who were editing directly against an RfC result (reinstating content that the RfC said should have been removed). Someone also could have said something to the admin who edited against the RfC result and reinstated the content the RfC said should have been removed with the very specious and unfounded claim that an RfC result can only be implemented by someone who didn't vote in the RfC. Also, it's good you didn't protect the page since you voted in the RfC. Sometimes, when a bunch of experienced editors are edit warring, it's because half of them are wrong and being disruptive. Sometimes being a good admin means figuring that out and not using the tools in a blanket way. Levivich 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Levich, I agree that this wasn't a "both sides" thing, the problem was that editors were restoring the previous version against the RfC consensus. I've given warnings to the four editors who did this. I'm also surprised that the edit requests to implement subproposals #3 and #8 have gone unanswered as the close has not been overturned. –dlthewave ☎ 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Being "right" is not an exemption from 3RR/EW per WP:3RRNO, so you should be warning all of them, or none of them. Also, you are completely involved, so shouldn't be warning them at all, especially in such a passive-aggressive way. I am unsurprised that some have kicked back against your warnings. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • As somebody who has been 'warned' by @Dlthewave: I must say I am positively quaking in my boots. Tbh I've never seen something so embarrassing in all my life. I'd expect some grovelling apologies to me and @BeanieFan11, Felixsv7, and Spike 'em: in the morning. GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      What is the point of threatening to report people to ANI when the issue is already very much under discussion here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      • and, even if anybody had been naughty (and they haven't) what sanctions are there going to be 48 hours later?! This conduct from Dlthewave has served no purpose but to annoy people and enflame an already volatile situation. GiantSnowman 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • To answer your question, my concern is that editors might continue to restore the current non-consensus version after page protection expires. This discussion does not preclude implementing the consensus which was reached at the RfC; the closing statement stands until it is overturned or retracted. I'm also quite baffled by some of the process-related objections which are still being raised: When did it become policy or practice that an involved editor should not implement consensus changes or issue warnings; that a close should not be implemented if it's under review; or that editors implementing that consensus are just as disruptive as those who edit against it? ANI is the next step if this disruptive editing continues. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
          • So basically you are sharpening your tools to rush in with your non-consensus preferred version of NSPORTS when protection expires, even though an ongoing discussion on that guidelines Talk page doesn't support that course of action at this time? Am I understanding you correctly? You have heard of collaborative projects and norms, hey? Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Being right doesn't exempt Muboshgu from WP:INVOLVED either. He should not have protected the page. This is not a quibble or technicality but a bright line rule.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As I was not INVOLVED in the RfC, I don't see how protecting the page from an edit war violated any rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I apologize wholeheartedly and retract that. I had you confused with someone else.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I was not involved in the RfC, but was involved in the discussion about implementation of the RfC after I became aware of it. My concerns were, and are, that "rough consensus" of the editors who took part in the RfC clearly didn't translate into a meaningful consensus of interested editors, and that implementation of the decision was done disruptively and left the page nonsensical and useless, with fragments of old policies left stranded out of context and incomprehensible. When challenged, some of the editors who left this trail of destruction challenged those who objected to clean up the mess they had left. It was a clear example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Reprotect NSPORTS

NSPORTS is reprotected

It looks like the protection on WP:NSPORTS expired, and there's further attempts to edit NSPORTS without a closure of the discussion here. Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus? Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Strong oppose - If anything, it is this version that should be protected. The RfC close stands until it is overturned, and subproposals 5 and 8 can be implemented immediately since there is no question of how they should be written or need for replacement text. I would note that subproposal 3, which is currently under discussion about how best to implement, has not been reinstated. Nfitz, please self-revert this edit which removes consensus content. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I'm simply going back to the previous frozen version from when the RfC close review started - as per WP:QUO. How is that version any different than this version which is from someone who is very much involved. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with Nfitz. NSPORTS should be protected until this review is closed and there is a clear consensus on the remaining issues. There should be no rush to make changes to NSPORTS, regardless of how "unanimous" they seem. WP:NODEADLINE. Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) There may be no deadline, but we're not going to talk about it forever, either. This RFC was open for two months. The implementation of the RFC is not subject to the consensus of NSPORTS editors. This RFC review is the last stop on this train. Unless the result is overturned, the RFC outcome will be implemented, without waiting for any further discussion. Local consensus will not overcome global consensus. This is our way. Levivich 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) That is indeed the way. But the way is also to wait. (though I doubt very much if this is the last stop! This has been simmering away for many years - and isn't the first RFC on the subject). Besides, the RFC was to delete NSPORTS - with umpteem follow-up proposals and severe bludgeoning, I really don't know how that RFC has any clear outcomes ... but as I'm involved, it is bad form for me to offer my opinion here. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Cmt Nfitz conveniently fails to mention here that the changes he's reverting have unanimous talk page consensus, reached after the first page protection, and are not themselves part of the current review. Since there is no non-procedural case against these particular changes, WP:NOTBURO applies here and the normal editorial process should be allowed to continue unimpeded. Avilich (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) How many editors even found that brief discussion? It's certainly not consensual. The discussion is at WP:AN - where, I note, involved editors shouldn't even be participating - something that you seem to have taken as an invitation to violate 44 minutes later. There is NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Nobody aside from you seems to think I violated anything by posting here. I did not even cast a formal endorse/overturn vote, just pointed out one of the contentions ahead of everyone else, which at least one uninvolved person took notice of and agreed with. That was my only substantive post before you started this edit war. Avilich (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Admin note I have partially blocked Nfitz for 36 hours for continuing to revert after I warned them about edit warring on NSPORTS. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Great, now can you restore the stable version? The changes he was reverting had been discussed on the talk page: the process was working exactly as intended after the first page protection, until he came along. Muboshgu effectively took his side again by locking the page in Nfitz's preferred revision. Avilich (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I agree that this limited change should be implemented as per sub-proposal 8. I also fully support the full-protection of NSPORTS to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Page protection is a reasonable response as well. Muboshgu and I just seem to have acted at the same time in different ways. I left a talk page message for them to try and work out next steps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Can an uninvolved Admin please revert User:Wugapodes's blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED, and explain to them that they are very much involved with NSPORTS! Not that I have any intention of further editing the page for 24-hours given the 3RR bright line, which I never crossed. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Please post diffs of edits that Wugapodes has made that makes them involved with NSPORTS. Levivich 22:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Levivich I presume that Nfitz is referring to the fact that Wugapodes closed the actual RfC in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah - not to mentioned opened this whole thing at AN. Here's some diffs that got caught in an edit conflict - One [6], two [7], [three https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability&diff=1076988647&oldid=1075707274] Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Those three diffs are "closing", the close, and revising the close. I was AGFing that closing the RFC wasn't what you were relying on to claim WP:INVOLVED, since that would clearly be exempted by the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. Also, the third paragraph exemption would apply, seeing as you re-re-reverted immediately after responding to an edit warring warning. In that situation, even an admin bot would have partially-blocked you, that's how clear it was. I see now you've asked "so how did I ask for protection first?", whereas your OP in this subsection was "...Can someone reprotect it until there's full consensus?", so we can all see that you asked for protection first, then made 3 2 more reverts, the third second coming after an edit warring warning that you were aware of. Did you think because you claimed "involved", you could re-re-revert and Wug wouldn't be able to block you? If so, you thought wrong. Your account is 16 years old; you've been indef'd and tban'd and otherwise sanctioned before; you know or should know the edit warring rules, and the INVOLVED rules, by now. Levivich 23:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) To be honest, I've never received an Admin warning for an "edit war" before - though Alex had a go at me once, - I haven't even looked at the policy for years. My impression was it was 3RR, but not necessarily 3RR for long-running or when people are gaming 3RR; which is why I'd have never have broken 3RR; perhaps policy has shifted over time (which is fine). Either way, time to move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Why is this even a big issue for you? You can't edit NSPORTS for 36 hours, which you can't even do since the page is now protected. Either way, the reasoning is straightforward: don't edit war or violate 3RR. I don't see that Wugapodes did anything wrong here. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) It's protected? Missed that ... all the more reason to revert the block. In the past, I've had nonsensical blocks ... which were then used against me much later. It's a reasonable request surely to have the reversion on the record. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) No, it was quite a correct block for edit-warring. FFS, even if you think the close for this particular point was wrong, that doesn't give you the right to revert to the former consensus and edit-war over it. The AN thread is right here, if you don't like that element of the close and want to challenge it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC) As I said, that's not what my understanding of edit warring is - but time to move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)  Done Muboshgu has protected the page for another 2 weeks: Special:Diff/1077172755. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Protecting the page to prevent edit warring is an easy stopgap, and of course anyone who edit wars should be warned or blocked, but it would be really helpful if admins could weigh in on which proposals have consensus and specifically admonish editors who go against it. There's also no reason not to implement this edit request immediately and I'm concerned that Muboshgu's "not done" response focuses on editor behavior instead of content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Once again, being "right" is not an exemption from edit-warring per WP:3RRNO. The closing admin as asked for feedback above, I suggest it would be a better use of everyone's time to provide that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Regard edit warring, the process is to discuss disputes, possibly go to an RFC, and if it's big to go to a large scale RFC and decide. Oh wait, we just did that.  :-) This implementation is (probably unprecedentedly) complicated and I think it's fine to play it safe and wait for the close review. But then editing against something that is clearly only an RFC implementation is a conduct issue regarding that person, not simple a 2 way edit war. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Well, I didn't think so - but consensus seems otherwise. Sorry for the disruption. Let's move on. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD really needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands has been relisted a second time. WP:ATTREQ is not something that can be ignored. Whilst I sympathise with the arguments for deletion, it cannot happen. Would someone please close this? Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this could, in fact, have been deleted. Despite Mjroots' adamant bold type on the matter, in fact a list of contributors could have been inserted in an edit summary (for example). It looks to me as if the AfD participants were given the wrong directions.—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There were 15 contributors before the splitting of the article, I can not reasonably see how they could be attributed in a meaningful way, and there was nothing even close to the consensus for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of them are bots but more importantly there is no requirement for attribution in a "meaningful way". The only requirement is for a list of contributors. This could be via an edit summary or as a list in the target articles. WP:ATTREQ makes it clear that both are acceptable albeit not preferred. The simplest solution IMO if editors really feel the current title is useless is probably to move the page somewhere else then properly annotated the relevant article histories to make it clear where the attribution has gone. If necessary, it could be made a subpage of one of the split targets or something else. Frankly I'm doubtful it's necessary to preserve the history after 2013-04-01 anyway, so the history could even be merged with Windmills in Jersey or List of windmills in Guernsey and the relevant other articles could be properly annotated. Personally it doesn't seem worth the effort, the article title isn't that bad, something meaningful can surely be done with it but I agree with S Marshall the idea we have to keep it at that exact title for attribution reasons isn't correct. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't HAVE TO redirect this, but why on Earth not, as it's the easiest path and doesn't harm the encyclopedia in any way? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To add onto Nil Einne's comment, I wrote WP:Attribution does not require blame as an essay recently. I skimmed the article's pre-2013 history and found only one non-Mjroots edit containing significant creative content: diff, by Man vyi. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots, your various comments invoking WP:ATTREQ and claiming that deletion is therefore prohibited are not an accurate interpretation of the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. Proper attribution (shortcut WP:PATT), a few sections later, is clear that a List of authors is sufficient. Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD) is also relevant. WP:Merge and delete (supplement) describes possible approaches for this rare situation. I intend to create WT:Articles for deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands with a note to prevent future readers from being misled. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Flatscan. The attribution requirement does not prevent us from taking the editorial decision to delete an article. In such cases, attribution can be provided in an alternative manner, as discussed above. I note that the attribution requirement is in actual practice seldom met because nobody has enough time to disentangle thousands of contributions in the history of an article with tens of thousands of edits and dozens of mergers to be able to determine who wrote a specific phrase, but we do not worry overmuch about this problem either. Sandstein 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, attribution is required by the license and must be taken seriously. Many pages are properly attributed: as a very rough proxy estimate, {{Copied}} is transcluded on nearly 17,000 pages. Regarding who wrote a specific phrase, "blame" is not required, as mentioned above. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandstein Attribution is not disentangl[ing] thousands of contributions in the history of an article with tens of thousands of edits and dozens of mergers to be able to determine who wrote a specific phrase as you put it; it is as simple as "Content was copied from Foo, see that page for attributions" and it's fairly miffing to me as someone who puts in the time and effort to hunt down the results of people not caring. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

Could an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes please close Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer, either with an immediate snow close or ^{(apparently the word "either" was too confusing...)} after the usual 30 days?

The last substantive comment was four days ago on 10 March 2022 and further discussion is unlikely to change the result.

I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons:

First, emotions are high on this one, and it is likely that whichever way it closes there will be accusations that it was closed with a WP:SUPERVOTE.

Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB?

Third, Arbcom published a FoF (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source) on what the current consensus was at the time based upon RSNB discussions from before this RfC. If the result of this RfC does not match the FoF IMO the closing should explicitly discuss which of the two is authoritative and whether an additional decision at WP:ARCA to bring the two into alignment is needed.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Any consensus at the RfC would be considered authoritative, Guy Macon Alternate Account, as the FoF explicitly states "There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability." A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also opened a request at WP:RFCL, though I think we can let it run the full month.

Second, there are open questions regarding wikipedia policy; can a source be biased yet still be generally reliable for supporting statements of fact? Is scientific skepticism Wikipedia's "house bias" as I contend in my essay at WP:YWAB? - the closer can't answer those questions. The first they might address in their close, based on the weight of arguments presented, but for the second you would need an RFC proposing to implement a "house bias".

Regarding the FoF, I believe Barkeep49 already addressed that question: The FoF is true. When this case closes there will be no community consensus on its general reliability. However you are obviously correct that there's a reasonable chance it would become quickly outdated if the RfC finds consensus other than "no consensus" and so I have added a sentence noting that RfC for people who read this case in the future. In other words, the RFC consensus applies, not the FoF. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The FoF reflected community consensus at that moment. As consensus can change there's no tension if a consensus is found now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Also I guess I should underscore that ArbCom was not making a decision about the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer. Such a decision would be outside its scope. ArbCom was instead stating what the current thinking in the community was. After this RfC the thinking will have evolved in some way which is fine - the decision is meant to be true at that point in time and not a living document. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure why folks keep requesting closes here, when there exists a venue specifically for requesting closes. Also, there's no rush to close the discussion, might as well let it run the full time. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm still mulling over the arguments, as well as looking through how the source is actually used on-wiki, but I (who opened the RfC) intend to make a !vote before it's over. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• There is no rush to close it. Just let editors participate and, when the RfC tag is removed, someone will come along and close it. Isabelle ^🔔 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know why everyone is assuming I asked for an immediate close when I made it clear that I don't care whether it runs 30 days or not, but "someone will come along and close it" is pretty much guaranteed to result in a huge shitstorm. I know a contentious RfC that needs an experienced closer when I see one. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) This is still not the proper noticeboard to request such a close, Guy Macon Alternate Account. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Please cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that closure requests may only be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I searched and could not find any such rule.

    Sometimes it is more convenient to simply post a call for close in the discussion section of the RfC. I often do this when WP:SNOW clearly calls for an early close ^{(Note: saying that you are OK with an early close or a full 30 days is not the same thing as calling for an early close.)} but I can't do it myself because I am involved.

    Sometimes WP:CR is the obvious right place to request a close, such as cases where the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear but pretty much any uninvolved closer should be able to close it without causing any further drama.

    Sometimes, as is true in this case, you can look at the discussion and see the coming shitstorm from editors who didn't get their way and you need a closer with experience in contentious closes, not just the random closer you get at WP:CR. Usually this means an admin, but some veteran editors are experienced in contentious closes and can do the job. AN is a good place for this sort of request.

    There are rare cases where a team of closers is needed. An example would be the Daily Mail RfC.

    And of course many discussion don't need a closer at all. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Guy Macon: In your opening statement here you mention the discussion could be closed right now per WP:SNOW, which gives the appearance of wanting an early close. Although the discussed had died down (of course posting about it in a such visible place would of course lead to it receiving more comments), a close before the recommended 30 days seems counter-productive if the topic is controversial or the close is likely to be challenged, which it appears you believe to be, as you are asking for an experienced editor and/or administrator. I hope that answers your question about why people seem to think this is a request for an immediate close, and why some (well, me at least) are recommending we wait. Isabelle ^🔔 19:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Guy's request for an experienced, uninvolved editor (preferably an admin due to the Arbcom/policy linkages) to close the RfC. Sooner, later, whenever. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

*(Non-administrator comment) Too early. The last two votes (mine included) were made today, and there is a notable absence of editors with fresh eyes on this. It should probably be extended into other RfC category pools to get more editors with no prior history with the topic. And the unwieldy discussion section should be collapsed so it's more clear where to comment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have formally non-closed the closure request. Wait until the 30 days run and the bot pulls the thingy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We are now two weeks away from the 30 day close. There are still major problems that need an experienced closer to evaluate. Examples include:

• WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but multiple !votes amount to "SI is biased so it must be unreliable". These need to be evaluated to see if they conform to Wikipedia policies.
• At WP:ARBSCE, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#GSoW training: contents found (Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions) that "Trainees are given outlines of Wikipedia's core content policies and encouraged to explore project-space on their own" and Arbcom did not place any special restrictions on GSoW members, yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on the RfC (with no evidence that the editor being targeted actually is a GSoW member other than them being a new editor!).

Again I ask, will an uninvolved closer with experience in contentious closes please volunteer to close this after 30 days? Emotions are high on this one and I know an upcoming shitstorm when I see one on the horizon. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with your revert of the close of this thread. [8] This thread is serving no purpose. Everyone who is going to read your request has already read it, and anyway, you're more likely to find an experienced closer by posting at CR instead of here. CR, not AN, is where closers look for things to close. On top of all that, the RfC is not yet ready to be closed as new votes are still coming in. I don't see how repeatedly posting here is helpful in any way. Levivich 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on the RfC If you are referring to the discussion between @BilledMammal and Ebergerz:, started here, this is a misrepresentation of what has been said. What BilledMammal has very clearly expressed is a concern that Ebergerz has been stealth canvassed to the discussion, and not a general moratorium on contributions from GSoW editors as a whole. I'll be happy to strike this comment if you are instead referring to something else however, so I'd appreciate it if you could please clarify. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here I'll try to help clarifying it a little. While it may be a little more nuanced that what Guy expressed, in the end it amounts to almost the same thing: By BilledMammals reasoning any user who is new to the formal discussions and he judges to be part of GSoW has to be by default canvassed and would seem that there is no chance that said user could have a legitimate interest in the discussion. So, if a user is new to this discussions (myself in this case) is not judged to be part of GSoW, then there is no reason to believe they are canvassed by GSoW, but if they are judged to be part of GSoW, then immediately the conclusion is that they have been canvassed. Seems a bit circular to me. In the end it would simply be the same thing Guy said but with a qualifier: GSoW members who have not done so before are not allowed to comment on the RfC. Additionally, I'd like to mention that while I may be new to formal discussions in EN WP, I'm by no means new to WP itself, my editing record in SP WP is pretty consistent, though admittedly most of my editing is in main space. Ebergerz (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 unblock request

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has been unblocked by ArbCom for the purposes of making an unblock request to the community. I have taken the liberty of copying his request here, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. The text of this request follows below. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 isn't able to edit here currently, so I'll add the timeline that was requested of them here on their behalf. Operator873 ^connect 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [9] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

• Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [10]
• Another complaint: [11] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
• Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [12] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
• Now the AE block... [13] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
• Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [14] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
• I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
• I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [15] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
• I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
• ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [16]
• It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Community input

• Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 ^connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.

Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 ^connect 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN54129 19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry! SN54129 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You also removed my comment...[17] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
  • Links to the previous unblock requests.
• If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  DF has written their timeline on their talk page. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 ^connect 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [18] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [19]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 ^connect 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 ^connect 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.

Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.

Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 ^connect 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: [20]. Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: [21]. Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN: [22].

She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.

All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, ♠PMC♠ is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work. Operator873 ^connect 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - It appears that Darkfrog24 has not only complied with the indefinite block but has contributed to the Wikipedia project in the Simple English encyclopedia, where they have made positive contributions. It appears that Darkfrog has learned from their mistakes and is ready to edit collaboratively in the English Wikipedia, subject to the same restrictions as had earlier been imposed. (That is, I am supporting the unblock, not any lifting of restrictions.) (As I explained yesterday in another case, I have a particular strong distrust for anyone who engages in block evasion or sockpuppetry, and this is not such a case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas the train 22's block

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

---

ToBeFree blocked Thomas the train 22 because of only vandalizing. However, he only vandalized once. Is one edit enough to consider a block? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 22:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

They attempted to vandalize many many many times, so yes, the block is valid. Also, you're expected to discuss your concerns with the blocking admin before posting here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes once is enough, depending on the type of vandalism they do. If someone spouts some nazi or racist crap in an article on their first edit...boom. indef blocked by me. Sometimes it is a sock but we don't want to give them credit. Boom, indef. Or as Ponyo showed, sometimes there is stuff you don't see, either deleted contribs, revdel, oversight or filter triggering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Look at the filter log - this edit alone tells you they’re not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• That escalated quickly! Faster than Thunder, Special:Diff/1077505294 should already contain all information you needed including a link to the relevant policy and the filter log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Copyright action review

Today I came across Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, which since 2018 has included a full reproduction of the creatively-selected copyrighted list (see WP:TOP100). I removed it, and then revdeleted almost the entire contribution history of the article. This seemed obvious to me at the time but I'm having second thoughts. Review please? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you can copyright a list of facts, but this is a little more, in that they made the decision to rank them. Still, once they have done this, it is just a list of facts, not prose. No expert here, but I can't help but think the list is ok. What is copyrighted is the prose and format they presented the list in. We have a lot of these articles, like where Barron's magazine might list the 10 most successful companies, etc. and we reprint the list, sourcing it back to them. A good example is List of most valuable brands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector and Dennis Brown: The relevant help page here is Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Something like a list of companies by value is not copyrightable as it contains nothing except simple facts sorted into ascending order, whereas something like a list of the "greatest artists of all time" would be protected by copyright since its production involved a significant amount of creative expression, it being based entirely off the opinions of the author. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, mysterious stranger. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  An example of a comparable fact-based list is List of best-selling music artists. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support both removal and revision deletion. While over 200 revisions across 2 years were hidden, not much was changed during that period. A removal last month with an explanatory edit summary was reverted within a few hours. A recent discussion, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh, had a range of opinions on acceptable RD1 use. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think that's the right move, Ivan. I removed a similar list a couple months ago and Moneytrees revdel'd it. Discussion at User_talk:Moneytrees/Archive_23#Please_review_potential_copyvio. Levivich 04:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Right choice as others have said. Gosh, when I think of "Copyright in lists" that's one of my first choices for an obvious "yes, that's copyrighted". Sennecaster (Chat) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User on Ku Klux Klan attempting to push his POV onto the article

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

---

• Total random nerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i recently was checking on the article Ku Klux Klan and i saw that someone had put a bunch of stuff about the Ku Klux Klan being "pro-gun control", "progressive", "leftist", etc on the article, i have reverted most of the additions, especially the unsourced ones, its a clear attempt of the famous "what i don't like is literally KKK/Hitler/nazis", attempting to, as always, call the KKK democrats, leftists and progressivists, when its said, with sources, on the page itself, that the KKK is a socially conservative, anti progressivist group, about the leftist thing and "first KKK is not far right and progressives supported it", its clear that it was, and that these so called progressives and leftists were not leftists or progressivists at all, as, why would a progressive support a conservative organization, in addition, just supporting the new deal doesn't instantly make you a progressive, as the democrats at the time weren't really progressive.

anyways, i think that we should, in fact, protect the article with a higher protection, to prevent things like that from occurring, as vandalism was also recently reported in the page, thanks in advance. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• For the peanut gallery, Total random nerd is the party he is referring to, and he did notify them (thank you). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was most certainly a progressive movement. See this for starters. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, Reason has something of a dog in this fight. To call the 20's klan "progressive" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me as we use the term today. My favorite (popular) history of this era is "Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan" by Nancy MacLean (forgive my dated tastes as I am old). While we can take the Reason article into account, I think we should be looking to more authoritative sources. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, per Ohio History Central: "During the 1920s, many Progressives also joined the Ku Klux Klan, a self-proclaimed religious group that was to enforce morality, based on Progressive beliefs, on other people." — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the insinuation of EpicWikiLad here that the KKK opposed labor unions is another point I will provide a refutation to. This source explains that the the Klan favored labor unions and violently resisted strikes in the 1920s when certain unions were exclusive to benefiting the white Protestant working-class. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which is referring to the Bull Moose Party sense and era of "Progressivism". Using that as a rationale for cramming a no-context, no-nuance reference to Progressivism in the United States into the infobox, with no supporting material in the article, looks like an ill-judged addition at best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  "no supporting material in the article" It appears you did not sufficiently read the article. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it appears you did not sufficiently write it. (Which given the nature of that writing, overall no bad thing.) I think the "at best" assumption of any good faith here is sailing rather fast. That you made other poor-quality "hahaha leftist KKK gotcha" edits at the same time to the rest of the text, while failing to stand up that one, is entirely besides the point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Klan most certainly took some left-wing positions, namely gun control (First Klan) and compulsory public education (Second Klan). The attributed label of "right-wing" to describe them relies on vague, often fallacious presumptions. Books such as "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics" by Rory McVeigh outright admit that they arbitrarily assign a vague definition to "right-wing" order to deem the Klan as allegedly such. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is gun control even a 'left wing' issue? Yes, it is advocated for by the centre and centre-left of american politics, but in itself it has no political home, is not part of any 'side'. Just because one party advocates for something in any given country, does not magically make any issue 'left wing' even if the party would be on the left wing. And given how distorted the Overton window is in the US, it is arguable if the country even has a 'left wing party' and not just a centrist one and a (far) right wing one. Typical insular amerian view. This all reeks of alt-right nonsense that has been so normalised in the US, and by extension very much so on Wikipedia. Just sad that you lot let people play those stupid games on here, and it got so much worse over the last couple of years. The Paradox of tolerance could be a nice short read for some people. 80.228.130.74 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

For the short term: User:Total random nerd is also in breach of the ArbCom-sanctions at Margaret Sanger. He/she is clearly aware of it and choses to ignore the warning. The Banner talk 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Aware to the point of finding it "boring" that they've been warned "a zillion times", indeed. If they're not reading these notices before blanking them on their talk page, they certainly should be... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• TRN's Reason article looks sufficiently detailed to suggest this content should probably be in the article. It might help if the article were structured around these different phases of the KKK, even in the introduction. That said, why is there no talk page discussion regarding these edits? The most recent, non vandalism edit, was 4 March. I would suggest finding additional sources (certainly the Reason article provides some). The Reason article looks like a good source but, unless we have additional sources, it would have to be treated as a single source and thus have very limited weight. Get the sources, propose changes on the talk page. Springee (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  My edits do not constitute vandalism. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was talking about the article's talk page. Look at the 8 March edit and you will understand my comment. Springee (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• This tarring by association has spread to American Birth Control League, Birth control and Margaret Sanger. - MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, just imagine if more articles actually included the full factual substance instead of using omission to whitewash bigotry... — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

TRN is doing the standard 21st-century reactionary thing, of conflating the late 19th-early 20th century progressive movement and the Democrats of that era, with the 21st-century Democrats and the contemporary use of the term "progressive" to describe views actually closer to the 1920s Socialist Party of America than anybody else of that era. The goal, as MrOllie points out, seems to be "guilt by association" as practiced by D'Souza and others who call liberals fascists, antifascists fascists, BLM activists racists, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the irony of someone hurling "guilt by association" charges toward me to insinuate I merely follow in the footsteps of D'Souza... I do not wholeheartedly subscribe to the argumentative points of D'Souza, which I view as frequently naive. And please clarify what you mean by "antifascists." Is the reference towards Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation? And do the mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020 not merely serve the causes of white supremacists in decimating the livelihoods of ethnic minority residents in those areas? — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a shame that this clown been blocked yet. --JBL (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Exposing bigotry makes me a "clown"? I certainly see where you're coming from... — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation AND mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020? Yup, somebody's been chugging the alt-right fantasy Koolaid, all right. (And I live in the inner city of a major American city, TRN.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm now purportedly "alt-right" in spite of my consistent edits which demonstrate an effort to point out and expose bigotry that numerous articles whitewash via omission? And I purportedly chug the Kool-Aid? The English language lacks enough words for me to sufficiently deem this laughably ridiculous slander. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to distinguish your comments here from those of a troll. ––FormalDude talk 06:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Srsly. — JBL (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Total random nerd, let me put this in plain Texas talk: I read through your edits earlier, some were a little problematic, but much of it was interesting and I can see where there is merit to including it. The problem is the sources need a little work, and the other problem is you. You come in with a sledgehammer in hand, breaking shit, so it's no wonder some people are going to get upset. What you are talking about is pretty radical change to the page. I'm not an expert, but some of it seems worthwhile and would get consensus. But you have already added it, it was reverted. Via our gold standard for editing disputes, WP:BRD, now is the time you stop editing and use the talk page to discuss your changes, calmly and politely show your sources, and try to garner support over time. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you keep editing this boldly, you're going to have a bad day. TheBanner points to where you are edit warring. If you do THAT again, you're going to have a bad day. I don't want to block you, but I can justify it easily if you don't pull back a little and use the talk page. If you do that, then all is well. Just be patient, this stuff takes time. People in general abhor change so trying wowing them them charm instead of beating them with your opinion. Serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Dennis, I do want to block them, and have done, for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 1-revert restriction at Margaret Sanger. As The Banner points out, TRN has ignored a warning about it (with a yawn, so I guess they have become pretty blasé about warnings that have never before been followed up with a sanction). Also, the 1RR restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article. 24 hours is a short block; I'm not sure some of the stuff above doesn't merit more; but this is what I'll personally do at this time. No prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
  • I think it was well earned. We will see if it has an impact or not. The goal is still to get them up to speed and get them to use the talk page. Having a few good ideas doesn't make you exempt from following the same rules as everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So many POV edits across so many articles, with so much edit warring from an account that's just a few months old... Presumably AE, not ANI, is the next stop should any of it continue. But that does raise an interesting question: are a rash of edits connecting the name of current political parties/movements with historic ties to racism covered by AMPOL? There are so many, and they're so on the nose, that the connection is clearly the goal rather than just an interest in each historical subject individually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Having done some editing involving the Klan, to broadly call the Klan "progressive" (which is a loaded term with a lot of historical depth) without much explanation is disingenuous to both the Klan and progressives. It is accurate that the 1910s-1920s era Klan had progressive supporters (among the Eugenicists and most progressive southerners at that point), but the progressives of the Progressive Era are quite distinct from the progressives who emerged in the decades that follow. Plenty of progressives of that era, such as Al Smith, were also no friends of the Klan. The "Business Progressives/Progressive Plutocrats" of North Carolina that emerged in the 1930s were both white supremacist and anti-Klan. By the 1950s progressive becomes a label suited to people like Frank Porter Graham and Terry Sanford, who were pushing for civil rights for black people. The Klan adheres to a racially conservative ideology, and always has. It seems perfectly fine to mention the KKKs relationship with the Progressive movement of the 1910s and 1920s, but TRN seems WP:NOTHERE, only desiring to replicate the "gotcha" politically partisan pages of Conservapedia. If they are as familiar with Reconstruction and the Klan as they claim to be, they should know better. Topic ban at the least. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Back editing in a somewhat lower-key manner, but in exactly the same subject area, and pushing exactly the same POV. For example, adding Category:Left-wing populism in the United States to Theodore G. Bilbo (a big ol' Dixiecrat Klansman), marking it as a minor edit. Though as it was with one of their signature "yelling about leftists" edit summaries, I guess not the sneakiest ever such sneak. But if they were at least able to accurately mark and describe their edits, and deign to use the talk page as they're so keen for others to do if their edits get reverted, that'd be a marginal improvement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their editing of biographies, while lower-key, is riddled with POV-pushing. I think more sustained administrative intervention is needed. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits replicated from Conservapedia

• Aside from the hyper-aggressive POV-pushing concerning the KKK (and, relatedly, abortion: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), I wonder if someone who knows something about copyright could take a look at the long series of their edits with summary "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": according to their talkpage, "elsewhere" is "another wiki", and that to me raises the possibility that these additions might be under copyright by the other place they published. (Such edits include: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44].) --JBL (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: Several of those edits contain material copied from Conservapedia that was written by a Conservapedia editor called User:Liberaltears. Doesn't appear to be a copyright violation though as Conservapedia allows reuse without attribution. ––FormalDude talk 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm guessing we still prefer attribution. I went and check out their license, which really isn't a license. It isn't public domain, although similar. It isn't copyleft but similar. In many countries, that isn't even a valid copyright license, although I don't think they care what other countries think. Still, attribution is always best with material from other sites like this. No reason not to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  If it's their own material, it doesn't matter what the original license is, as long as they've never entered into any agreement preventing them from relicensing it. The moment they click "publish changes", they've relicensed it under CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. Same as when one takes a photo and then uploads it to Commons; in most cases that's an act of relicensing a previously all-rights-reserved work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there is another agreement -- or a purported one -- with The Other Wiki. Plus there's the issue of verifying whether our user is indeed the originator. Conservapedia have a 'copyright policy' that uses the word 'license', that was written by an allegedly qualified and practicing lawyer, so on the face of it this is supposed to be legally operable. It seems fairly laughable though. It consists of a statement that a licence is granted until they chose to revoke it for opaque reasons and on entirely vague grounds ("self-defense", and reuse of (the magisterially oxymoronic) "entire parts"). And of course, of ample amounts of boasting about how superior this is to Wikipedia's system, somehow. I don't know how we'd go about attribution: clearly not by citing Andypedia, which is a reliable source only to the extent of being an anti-weathervane. I'm not sure it's either reasonable or helpful to ask that editor to acknowledge that identity and those edits. The ideal solution might be if they rewrite their (let's suppose) own contributions in such a way as not to infringe the copyright that they've irrevocably signed over to the Schlaflywiki, that they then explicitly revocably allow us to use, until potentially they don't. Given this editor seems to be a fairly implacable POV-pusher, thinks use of talk pages are for other people, regards the 3RR as more of a target than a limit, and requests being unblocked on the basis that they didn't read the very clear 1RR warning they sneeringly blanked, I'm not holding my breath on fulsome cooperation on that score. But I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, so this is well above my pay-grade. Maybe this should be referred to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, if that's at all adjacent to the right place? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • No Tamzin, it doesn't work that way. They don't use CC license, they have their own. Just because they are a Wiki doesn't mean they use the same license we use. And yes, 109.255.211.6, I got a good snicker out of their license as well, which is why I'm sure it won't hold water in some countries. I have dealt with copyright and trademark issues as part of my job for 30 years now, although I'm not a lawyer nor an expert. There really isn't anything to enforce, although they aren't trying to enforce anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: Does part of their license take away someone's right to relicense what they publish there? Because if not, it doesn't matter what the license says. If you publish your own writing in two places under different licenses, then, assuming you didn't agree not to do that, both licenses are valid and the more restrictive one doesn't limit the less restrictive one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not really relevant what they claim to do. I've published the same images and text under multiple licenses for years, for instance I have some images that are under CC 3.0. If a company wants to use them somewhere without giving me attribution (like on the cover of a phone book, which really happened), they they have to license it separately, as CC3 requires attribution. So pay me a few hundred bucks, and I will license it royalty free for that limited purpose, without attribution. Lot of material is dual or tri licensed. Anyway, we really don't care about their license, except whether it is compatible with ours. This is why I said you should give attribution anyway, even if their license doesn't require it. And I say this because their license, again, really isn't a license. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  That'd be my assessment too, Dennis, but my meta-assessment is that my assessment isn't worth very much, and we should ask someone who's qualified and willing to stick their neck out on that. Other countries is the least of their worries if it doesn't even hold up in NJ. Maybe it's entirely void; maybe some reasonable interpretation of it might be held to stand, even though it's unreasonably badly written. As for addressing this by "attribution", again I'm not sure how that'd work. We can't sensibly tag the articles, and I don't know if it's appropriate or constructive to tag the account. But to Tamzin's particular point: Iunno, maybe? Let's assume that the extra from Mrs America at some point in the future does "revoke" Wikipedia's 'license' to use their (they appear to claim) copyrighted material. (Actually it's so badly written it's unclear if they're claiming to own the copyright or publishing rights in their submissions. Honestly, we should be questioning this person's licence to practice law, never mind his wikilicence.) Would we undertake to comply? Fight them in court? Ignore them and assume they'll flounder in vain? And granting that they're not doing this at present, do we anticipate such concerns in theory, or just burn that bridge when we come to it? This surely must have arisen before, I'd had thought. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah-hah! Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Sources#Other Wikis, by name, and assorted outgoing links. "The revocable license is a no-go." And apparently we're at the least politely pretending that it is indeed a valid licence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Good work Mr/Mrs IP. FormalDude, this means YOU must go back and remove each and every one of those. While it isn't directly a copyright infringing (so I don't think I have to revdel), we don't accept their "license" as being Free. That pretty much settles it. Failure to remove, well, trust me, you just want to remove those over the next day. Even tho it isn't directly a copyright infringing issue, we have to treat it exactly as one, because it could possibly be one if they revoke the license. Since you added it, it's your job to remove it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Btw, had you given attribution in the summary, this would have been a lot more trivial to fix, because it would be easy to search. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Just want to confirm before I proceed: you want me to revert all of their contributions that contain copied material from Conservapedia? ––FormalDude talk 04:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's some targeting confusion here. FormalDude is just the person sleuthing these, alongside @JayBeeEll's initial reporting; the perpetrator was Total random nerd. Who can't be fixing them just yet, as they're still blocked for their 1RR vio (perhaps with 'other offences taken into consideration, m'lud'). Ideally they will when they get back, though given that they were fairly transparent about what they were going here, and were almost certainly unaware of these IP issues, for that at least they're not to be reproached. In principle anyone could, but no one must fix these, as the Anglicans might put it. Which could be done by reverting, or by rewording sufficiently if the general sense is a useful addition. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to note Conservapedia is WP:USERGENERATED, thus, any information copied from it should be removed whether there is a copyright concern or not. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Content being usergenerated doesn't mean it can't be used here. We can't use usergenerated content as sources, but we can copy it here provided we comply with copyright since content here is clearly also user generated. And indeed we copy content from other user generated sites all the time, with content from other languages Wikipedias. Besides copyright, the issue when copying is whether the content complies with our policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Because many other Wikipedias have similar policies to ours, their material is often useful provided the editor makes the effort to ensure where there are differences between our respective policies, the material is modified as needed e.g. sources are changes or the material is re-worded or remove. It is unlikely this is the case for conservapedia, as their policies are often in fundamental dispute with ours, but this isn't because it's user generated per se. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think you've misunderstood User:Tamzin's argument although the IP seems to understand it. Tamzin's argument seems to be that Conservapedia can say whatever the hell they want about what licence their content is under but unless they explicitly either require copyright transfer or forbid contributors from relicencing their content elsewhere, any contributors are free to relicence their work elsewhere including on Wikipedia. Since we on Wikipedia require dual GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 as part of our ToU, any contributor who submits their work has licenced it under both these licences unless they're legally prevented from doing do, no matter where else they may have submitted their work. Therefore if someone from conservapedia comes here and copies the material they wrote here, there is no legal copyright issue as the material has been appropriate licenced here under both the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 whatever Conservapedia says. (Since they don't say anything which would forbid a contributor from doing so.) IANAL etc, but I'm pretty sure Tamzin is entirely right on this point. The problem with this as the IP has said is we have no way of verifying that the contributor here is the same as the one on Conservapedia. So as a matter of policy, generally if someone submits material from their personal website, we require them to either put their licences on their website or prove their identity Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online or we reject the material. In this case if the contributor on Conservapedia is the same as here, IMO they could either make appropriate statements on their Conservapedia user page about the licences of their contributions, or they could confirm their Wikipedia identity on their Conservapedia user page. If Conservapedia doesn't allow them to do either of these then they're pretty much SoL since I can't see how can link the two without something on Conservapedia. Separate to that we have an additional problem that Conservapedia is also a wiki. The contributor has to take great care to ensure they only submit content which is entirely their own work. In other words, they should not submit content which has been edited by others. Note if they are editing an existing article, it may be complicated whether what they wrote was influenced by others. On the whole, considering it's unlikely conservapedia content is useful here, they just shouldn't submit it given the great complexities involved. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo of User:Tamzin username. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the identity issue is a further complication for sure. That'd probably be workable around, if the editor were keen to do so, and some sufficiently tooled-up Wikipedia official were on hand to verify. Perhaps as you suggest, or for example by the so-trusted person contacting them by email via the account on each site. Plus the derived work concern, indeed. But even if those hoops were successfully jumped through, we'd still have Assistant Counsel's opinion that the revocable licence would prevent wholesale reuse here. Now, they might be being extra-cautious here, as I doubt they're entirely sure what legal effect the CP "licence" actually has. If any. They're saying "irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information" in one breath, and "Content is copyrighted" in the next. Is that purporting to be a copyright transfer? Does it amount to a "binding legal document" at all, given the lack of any actual plain-meaning use of language to say what effect it intends to have on the other hand, or any signs of competently lawyered jargon on the other? Ah hae ma doobts. Now whether that advice is simply applicable to direct copying, rather than to re-submission of individual (non-derivative!) edits we might need to get further clarification on. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

To update on this, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Re-use of Conservapedia edits, seemingly by their original contributor and a couple of people suggested that possibly/likely the original contributor does still own the copyright. Without necessarily going to far as to say the notice is clear, or indeed anything other than wholly defective. So it's fairly unclear if there's any admin action required here. Or indeed how best to advise the WP contributor (assuming they're indeed the same person) to proceed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Poking around a little more, I found a page on RationalWiki (I know, this turning into a wiki nostalgia tour) breaking down CP's Copyricence. I've no idea if their contributors have any expertise on this either, but I'm mildly comforted that their take is similar to mind, especially as regards it being a muddled mess. But interestingly, it points to a quote from Schlaf Jr himself, which strongly suggests that the intent of his cack-handed wording (and presumably consequent effect, if any, were this ever to be be litigated) is that the contributors retain copyright, and are free to relicence to other wikis (etc). "As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've asked TRN about this on their talk page. ––FormalDude talk 22:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To which they've responded with a revert (gasp, shock, film at 11) linking to the Conservapedia article on the same subject. Which has only been edited by one user, so I think we can do the maths on their claimed identity without straying too far into doxxing territory. (Literally only one editor in the entire article history -- maybe helps explain why CP may not be the best training for playing nicely with others.) But these concerns may be rendered largely moot by the following section... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Post-block continuation

• Total random nerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today's edits: Special:Diff/1078338619, Special:Diff/1078339056, Special:Diff/1078339111. Of course the source doesn't support labeling the subject a "fascist". This is classic POV pushing. And here's another "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": Special:Diff/1078352579. Needs indef. Levivich 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Support, there's no getting around this POV push. An indef is the best way forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• (ec)It's definitely continuing the same POV pattern as before: Democrats, RINOs and "Progressives" are Klansmen and fascists, ah-hahahaha, there will be so many liberal tears (as it were) at these edits. The theme of 'I have a tenuous and tendentious theory as to how to categorise people politically on the basis of quote-mining from a cherry-picked source, so I'll embed that in infoboxes and categories where it'll be as opaque and contextless as possible, rather than properly discussing it with any degree of nuance or due weight' continues too, as opposed to . I also note that the large addition to the Aime Forand is another replication of the article on Conservapedia on that subject, which was written entirely by a single editor, returning us to the issue of, does Conservapedia have a copyright notice, a licence, and in either case, is it valid and operable? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, Conservapedia's copyright notice is here. I can't comment on "valid and operable", nor on whether a license which is "revocable only in very rare instances" is compatible with Wikipedia's license. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you comment on their continuing to restore the content without proper attribution? [45] ––FormalDude talk 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your signature is ridiculously long - your comment started and ended on the first line of my display, and the following five are occupied just by code from your signature. As for attribution I think they did provide it - our license stipulates that a URL is sufficient - but I think the better question is whether republishing something here that an editor admittedly wrote themselves on Conservapedia constitutes original research. Conservapedia is not exactly known for its neutrality nor its adherence to reliable sources. I would question whether an editor who insists on copying material from such a website is competent to participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently "revocable only in very rare instances" has been deemed to be not compatible; see the discussion above at #Edits replicated from Conservapedia, so copying per se isn't possible (much less desirable). But had they verified they were the original contributor and hence copyright owner resubmitting them here -- and had we wished to keep them! -- that's different. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef clearly just here to push a POV, best stopped ASAP. -- JBL (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Oh no, block TRN because he exposes fascists for who they are!!11!11!" Yeah, 'nuff said. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I need an indefinite block because I expanded a stub into a sizeable article with content I originally wrote elsewhere? Insane. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  This rather neatly illustrates that you need an indefinite block because either you have a complete lack of insight into the extremely real issues with your conduct here. Or perhaps worse, are intent on rather disingenuously and artlessly reframing them to suit yourself. As was the case with much of your editing, one way or another. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support continuing block/or topic ban from American politics - TRN is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, they're here to stir shit up with subtle POV-pushing. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I heavily expanded a number of articles, including Stalwarts (politics) and Half-Breeds (politics). It would perhaps do you some good to pay attention before thinking about immaturely antagonizing me. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to suggest that an indefinite block was premature, but your responses make a good case that an indef is indeed appropriate. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Check out their recent edits, quite a few reverts demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, including reverting me on Hunter Biden where the edit referred to the laptop and their edit summary instead references emails. It appears this editor wants to edit war so much that they're not even reading what they're reverting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In the source for Special:Diff/1078338619, the author says that while (in their view) was sympathetic towards Mussolini's economic policies, they still specifically say in as many words that Hicklok otherwise rejected Fascism on ideological grounds. There is no good-faith way that that could be parsed as a source that would support describing Hicklok as a Fascist in the article voice; taken in the context of their responses above and elsewhere, it seems reasonable to infer that this is an intentional misuse of the source and that they have no intent of stopping. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked I am presently issuing the indefinite block. There is a clear consensus that the TRN is editing disruptively, and that the block should be an indefinite block. There is the confounding problem that TRN's responses to these problems does not show that they are likely to improve their behavior. --Jayron32 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

vandalism and POV pushing on Azov Battalion

theres a ip that has made a ton of sockpuppets and he is constantly vandalizing the article, i ask for someone to make a sockpuppet investigations page or something and block the involved ips and accounts from editing, in addition, protect the page to prevent more vandalism. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Azov Battalion has been semi-protected for 3 months by Deepfriedokra. As the article is related to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, it is also a logged arbitration enforcement action. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPI might not be a bad idea. Hopefully the SP will cut down the disruption. I should imagine there's some nationalistic propaganda going on, but I wouldn't want to try to sort it. I just WP:AGF hope for the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

if anyone opens a SPI, feel free to ping me here and ill go there and provide some information/help to try and solve this. EpicWikiLad (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I see that went pear shaped in a hurry, no? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible COI editor removing information/username issue?

Resolved

Dennisprosus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed criticism from Prosus and its subsidiary OLX. Their edits have previously been reverted at Prosus by @Edwardx: who also observed a likely COI. Not sure if their username which includes the company name violates WP:USERNAME, in either case, COI, removing referenced information, etc. could use some scrutiny. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• PhilKnight has deftly handled the situation, no other action is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

IP Global Block Request

@Blablubbs: The IP range [46] you have blocked and now back during Block evasion on this IP and doing same edits see this [47] , Block this also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.123.75 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please hide

Contains obscenities and vulgar words Persia ☘ 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you requesting here? There's not a link to a diff. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there might be diffs here that could be obscenities and vulgar words. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't translate that way. Perhaps Persia is talking about something on the Persian wikipedia, to which we have no control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, Link--Persia ☘ 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and indef blocked them. Most of that was hard to translate, there isn't exactly a literal translation, and Google Translate wasn't much help. I hate to get creative, and finally figured out what they were saying. I think I removed most of it from the history, someone was edit conflicting with me while I tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Shirshore (Horn of Africa General Sanctions)

• Shirshore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Somaliland/Somalia space, more recently they have been edit-warring across multiple pages (e.g. Sool:[48], [49], [50], [51], also on Sanaag: [52], [53], [54], plenty more of this edit warring behaviour can be found in their history.

This editor has a history of disruptive editing, they were blocked last year for the same behaviour (edit warring about Somaliland versus Somalia on many articles) [55], here is a link to the last report to illustrate the scale of their disruption Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: Blocked). They do not seem to care all that much for edit warring warnings: [56] as they persisted to continue the same disruptive behaviour within minutes of the warning.

It is important to stress here that the Horn of Africa section is under discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa caused by the same behaviour pattern exhibited by this editor. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE<nowiki> ban, failing that a topic ban from Horn-related articles would also work. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Editing wars are not a good thing, but neither is the other party (User:Jacob300, User:Kzl55). It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas, and I think this issue should be discussed in RfC, not AN.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• This block request I see as a disingenuous attempt to stop my contributions to Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and in that time I committed to the community's guidelines and have been a constructive member. If you briefly browse through my contribution history you will see that I have consistently adhered to guidelines by all always citing credible sources for every edit I make. Despite this effort on my part, a group of editors have persistently frustrated my contributions and have made it impossible to edit certain articles over a long period of time. This group includes Kzl55, Jacob300 and others (I personally suspect that some of these users are sock-puppets). I believe the group who edit as a team have an agenda to project Somaliland as an independent state and are not interested in neutrality at all. If you see the cause of the current dispute in the Sanaag talk page, you will see that I have tried to reason with the reporting editor to try and understand why they reverted the edits I made despite the plethora of credible sources I cited. However, it was impossible to reach consensus with them as they continuously reasserted a subjective standard that followed their point of view. I hope that this decision is not taken lightly and it is probably assessed to render a fair result. Shirshore (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin, I hope the above filibuster further illustrates why sanctions are necessary in this case. Other than personal attacks and attempting to frame the issue as a content dispute, there is little acknowledgement of the persistence of the pattern of behaviour that led to their block last year [57], nor any respect for the fact that the section is under discretionary sanctions. There is a long history of combative tendentious nationalist style of editing in this section [58] which is what led to the general sanctions being enacted in the first place. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Kzl55: I think it may be against WP:NPA to call a discussion partner as a nationalist.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• comment Apologies if this has been construed as a personal attack. This is not my intention. However, I do not think the reporting editor does this in good faith. Initially @Jacob300: reverted the edits I made on Sool and Sanaag. I informed that editor to engage on the talk page and they did respond at first but after the second time of reverting they ceased the disruptive behaviour and the reporting editor (@Kzl55:) instead supplanted them in reverting the edits on the third time. I believe if the reporting editor was acting in good faith they would of continued to engage on the talk page and not themselves revert edits on the third time. This is very similar to the pattern that was followed last year when I was blocked along with @Dabaqabad: as brought up by the reporting editor. Thus, I do believe @Kzl55:, @Jacob300:, @Dabaqabad: and @Gebagebo: who also displays similar patterns of editing might be sock-puppets. I could be wrong of course but this is worth investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirshore (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Shirshore: I have no proof, but I think they are different people as far as their thinking and what they post.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Note I might not be involved in this case but as an editor who has dealt with Shirshore (and who filed the last report that was linked here) it would be relevant to mention that Shirshore has earlier today removed significant chunks of sourced material since he sees it as "derogatory" ([59], [60]). This is very similar to when he blanked the Isaaq Sultanate article almost a year ago as mentioned by the previous report ([61]).

Overall he's displaying the very same behaviour as covered on the last report. Doubt he's here to build an encyclopedia to be honest given his blatant disrespect for the discretionary sanctions placed on anything Horn of Africa related, not to mention his personal attacks. Gebagebo (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Without any comment as to the merits of any of this, I will just note that because Horn of Africa is now an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction, WP:AE is available for reports. Reports there normally are resolved in some way (sanction, warning, no violation). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gebagebo: Thank you. I've added the points you've raised to a new report at WP:AE, please feel free to add anything I've missed there: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shirshore.

@Barkeep49: many thanks for highlighting that, I've filed a request there. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

Following an amendment request, the Arbitration Committee has resolved the following by motion:

Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

New sockpuppets

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

---

There is somebody vandalizing on the disambiguation page Etha.

First name was User:Etha.one, now it's James818181. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Polish-Lithuanian people by occupation

A month ago, a decision was made to move Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and its subcategories to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation. The decision was based on the observation that Poland ceased to exist in 1569 when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. This is a false statement, as the Commonwealth was a unionist state between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. So both states existed until the end of the 18th century. Besides, it is based on a narrow understanding of the concept of "nationality" as being inextricably linked with an existing state. In this understanding, in the 19th there was no people of Polish nationality, because Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. Moreover, the user Rathfelder who initiated the process referred to the article Polish-Lithuanian identity, not understanding its content, as this identity refers to the Lithuanians, citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who adopted the Polish language and culture, and not to all inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I would ask the administrators to react and withdraw the changes made. I also ping @Piotrus: as he asked. Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Move review. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Per the instructions in the last paragraph of the lead of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - move review will only consider discusions related to renaming categories, and deletion review will consider discussions leading to deletion. I don't think we have a merge review process. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why I suggested move review, as the category was renamed LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: If you think a category should be split then go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and follow the instructions on the page to start a discussion, however given that the discussion that lead to the merge was only a few weeks ago [62] you would need to address the comments made in that discussion and show why the decision to merge was wrong and/or not consistent with policy. I would also advise that you read the pages on what administrators on this site do and what their role entails (WP:Administrators is a good place to start). Admins do not get to act as "super editors", do not settle content disputes (like deciding what the definition of nationality is) and cannot unilaterally override the results of a consensus built at a formal discussion venue (nor can any other editor on this site for that matter), no admin is just going to revert the merge without discussion as you ask. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting period will close 23:59 UTC on 21 March 2022

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct will conclude on 21 March 2022 at 23:59:59 UTC.

I shared some voter turnout data here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 20 March).

Please share the information links with interested users: Project Overview • Universal Code of Conduct • Enforcement guidelines (proposed) • Voting • Voter information

The poll can be accessed via w:en:Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 or m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, we're doing it again already? My comment attached to my No vote this time was: If at first you don't succeed... For the next revision/vote, maybe clarify what the revised changes consist of...? Just a thought. Once again, I helped! Or, wait, is this the same vote as before? Because if so, I just double voted successfully. And there wasn't even a ravine in sight! So scared, still. El_C 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C this is the same vote. And like with Arbcom votes only your most recent vote will be counted. When you voted a second time the first vote was invalidated. So if you left other feedback then you should vote a third time so that feedback is what is considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I_C, weird. I never tried voting twice on an ArbCom vote before, so I didn't know that was possible. Thanks for clearing it up! El_C 18:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I always vote as many times as possible. I collect those really useful receipts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You could make a Collage! El_C 18:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask, is there any possible use case for those receipts? One is reminded of the late, great Mitch Hedberg and his infamous donut joke. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuously making dubious changes by an IP

The ip 122.162.148.195 is continuously making dubious changes without any source on Battle of Maonda and Mandholi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, please use WP:RFPP instead of this page for such reports. It is better designed to handle them. --Jayron32 12:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Persia

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

---

Hello. I found that the username User:Persia is against the Wikipedia:Username policy because persia is another name Country Iran and was used for centuries until it was changed in 1935 at the request of Reza Shah.see Persia (disambiguation) .This name is controversial and can not be used as a username by wikipedia users. There are many examples of these similarities on the wiki that are prohibited. Please follow this issue so that the user can change his username. Yours sincerely. 85.185.57.231 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

MustafaO unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, MustafaO (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Quarterly Community Safety survey

Apologies for cross-posting this, I wanted to make sure that as many people as possible know this is going to happen, so people aren't surprised when it appears.

Starting the week of 28 March 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation will conduct a quarterly anonymous survey about safety perceptions among the English Wikipedia community members.

This survey responds to a Universal Code of Conduct community recommendation, and we encourage you to participate.

There are more details about the survey on the project page, and you can also leave comments.

Best regards, Community Safety Survey team –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Information critical of war on Ukraine is being actively deleted on Russian wikipedia pages.

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

---

Someone who understands Russian language and the situation in Ukraine needs to double-check the history of https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B4%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B1%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8C_%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%3F for vandalism and deletion of information that is objectively correct. It seems like some pro Russian editors are just removing what they do not like. Thanks for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:3710:5900:F57B:E0D6:B146:7CA0 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We can do nothing with how the Russian Wikipedia operates. Unfortunately, each site is it's own entity, and here, we can only monitor what is edited on the English Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, at a glance through Google Translate, that article seems to be more complete (and contains more details criticizing the war or the propaganda phrase in question) than our article on the same subject, Where have you been for eight years? - not surprising given that most of the best sources are likely to be in Russian. --Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Backlog at AIV

There is a backlog at WP:AIV. 2.55.21.45 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

On it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the more creative ways I've seen to request blocking your own IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed... and tagging admins in edit summaries after refreshing your IP... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I... look cool? El_C 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Things I never expected to see referenced on WP:AN: a Twitch VOD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From the wisdeom of Twitch chat: fire is flammable. El_C 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Inflammable means flammable?! What a language! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

G11 or G12

hi

• I made an article (dotin)
• Removed based on G11 and G12 criteria.
• I asked the deleting user to return the text of the article to my practice page to correct it
• I asked the user to specify which part of the article has a copyright issue or includes ads
• Replied It won't be restored and you will not be allowed to post this advertisement again.

what's the solution? Thanks--N (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason it was deleted was that it was alleged to be a copy of this page. That page is in Persian, so it may be helpful if an admin who reads Persian could compare it to the deleted text. For me, looking at an AI translation of the source, it doesn't look similar enough to be a copyvio, but I also have no familiarity with the Persian language whatsoever and a healthy skepticism of machine translations. I don't know if Deb or Praxidicae (who tagged it as a copyvio) know Persian or not.

Any admin is going to be extremely hesitant to restore something that was deleted as a copyvio, especially if they lack familiarity with the language.

As for G11, if that were the only grounds for deletion you may be able to convince me or someone else to restore it as a draft or to your userspace if they thought it could be made more neutral. However, with the copyvio allegation hanging over it, it might be better to start over. Assuming, of course, that you do not have a conflict of interest. If you do draft a new article, I recommend going through articles for creation just so that another pair of eyes can verify that it is acceptable before it gets moved to mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn I need the resources used and the infobox to rewrite. If it is returned in my sandbox, I will inform another user to check before sending it in the original name space. Thankful N (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@نارنجستان I have copied the sources used and the infobox to your sandbox. I took the company logo out of the infobox as it is fair use and unable to be used in userspace. I hope that is sufficent. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn thanks a lot N (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that even if I had never heard of Wikipedia before I would keep a copy of anything substantial that I wrote on my device. If you did not do this then please do so in the future, and you will never have to bother anyone with such a request again. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil BridgerSorry N (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Koavf: review

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

---

Hi. I apologize if i'm anonymous, but I need to review the block on Koavf (talk · contribs). He's a trusted person. He made over 2.1 million edits. He needs to be unblocked. I recommend that Koavf only needs a soft/temporary block. I also recommend that Koavf agrees to policies within Wikipedia and learn to seek consensus and not edit war again. Please unblock him. Thanks. --2601:647:6516:BCA:D65:1FB2:A290:40CD (talk) 22:51, 2

Unfortunately, the current consensus/operating mode of AN is that Koavf will have to request an unblock directly. This allows us to know their reasons for wanting to return to active editing and ask them questions about their past actions. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Third party requests are not accepted. How did you come to be aware of this block, why are you advocating for them, and why do they not advocate for themselves? 331dot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User is Stalking My Edits and Undoing My Good Faith Work

User:Primefac is stalking my edits on Christopher G. Hollins. After completing some research as to rules and regulations, I usurped a page on entitled "Chris Hollins" and moved the old page to "Chris J. Hollins," while also redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to the old "Chris Hollins" page. After some back and forth, User:Primefac seems to have unilaterally determined that my edits were contested and overroad my edits by adding a protection the page. Then, I moved forward by creating the page "Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins" and redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to that page. User:Primefac maliciously deleted the new page, citing vandalism??? When it was a good faith effort to move forward without permitting the ongoing confusion. I have spent countless hours on this page, including working google to clarify the difference between the two Chris Hollinses and User:Primefac is determined to steamroll my efforts. His own efforts are clearly hostile and done in bad faith (period). This is volunteer work, it should not involve User:Primefac's ego. I wish for some intervention to resolve this conflict. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

Turns out Primefac also disabled me from working on the page Christopher G. Hollins for edit warring, when he is the one warring with me without explanation and without the three-revert rule having been invoked. He did so only to prevent me from recreating the Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins page and redirecting Christopher G. Hollins to the new page. I am allowed to retitled MY work. And I should not be prevented from working on an article I originated in good faith. Therefore, in addition to seeking some intervention, I am requesting that the block be removed. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You're quite clearly engaged in an edit war, which is never appropriate, even if your edits are correct. Your partial block is only for one week, and it seems that it is necessary to prevent you from continuing to edit war. If you are willing to agree to stop edit warring and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, it is possible Primefac or another administator would be willing to remove or reduce your partial block.

You've also called Primefac's edits bad faith, but didn't provide any evidence. They're just following Wikipedia standards, and your accusations against them seem unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: while we thank you for your contributions, per WP:OWN you do not own any pages here even if you are the sole contributor. We will generally allow you to request deletion of content for which you are the sole contributor (WP:G7) and sometimes like with reference styles and English varieties, we will follow the first contributor's preference if there's no reason to choose any other option. However in all cases our policies and guidelines are more important than any contributor's preferences. So if your preferences are not inline with our policies and guidelines like WP:Common name and WP:NCDAB, then we will defer to our policies and guidelines rather than your preference. Note I am not commenting on any the specific title dispute, simple saying that it's not correct that you get to rename an article without considering the disagreement of other editors just because it's your work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also even where your preference as author of a page makes a difference, it definitely does not allow you to usurp or take control over some other title. The other title is clearly not your work so trying to take control over it solely because you created some other article is not acceptable in any way and frankly doesn't even make sense. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like ChristaJwl moved an existing Chris Hollis article to Chris J. Hollins. Then after another editor turned Chris Hollins into a dab page, ChristaJwl copied and pasted the contents of Christopher G. Hollins into Chris Hollins. Primefac stepped in and protected the page to reverse the copy/paste move, which I see nothing wrong with. ChristaJwl also copied and pasted Christopher G. Hollins to Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins, which needs to be speedied. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The last issue is another important point. WP:CUTANDPASTE is not generally an acceptable way to move pages any more per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The only case where it might be okay is if you're really the only contributor but in this case it's clear that User:David Tornheim and probably others have made significant contributions to the page so cut and pasting definitely is not acceptable. User:ChristaJwl please don't do that again or you may be blocked from the entirety of Wikipedia. It's not acceptable to have such disdain for the WP:copyright of your fellow contributors. They've agreed to freely licence their work but one of the conditions is that they must receive attribution (well with some differences between CC BY-SA and GFDL). There is no way anyone can know from the history of Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins [63] that there are other editors who wrote part of that work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear this means even if your moves were otherwise completely proper and frankly now that I've looked into it in more detail I don't think any of them are, what you did would still be wrong since you didn't move them in the correct way. Note if you cannot make a move because an existing page is in the way, the correct process is to make a technical move request for an admin or page mover to do it for you. It's not to cut and paste the content around. I see when the article was originally created the content was partly copied from the draft. I'm not sure it why it was done this way but it was acceptable there because proper attribution was left both in the article history and in the article talk page (albeit non standard). Perhaps this confused you, but when Primefac told you what you were doing was wrong, you should have listened rather than making false accusations of bad faith. As Primefac also said regardless of whether you're right about the primary topic, once your undiscussed move was disputed, you needed to make a full WP:Requested move rather than edit warring to keep your version in place. You do not get to decide by yourself what's the primary topic when there is dispute. As I said above, this would apply even if you were the sole author of both the article and the title you're trying to usurp neither of which is the case anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The cut-and-paste move problem goes even deeper than that, as there is Draft:Christopher Hollins, which has edits by ChristaJwl and is about the same subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look like ChristaJwl is responsible for that one though. I sort of indicated this above, technically it might be okay provided the draft isn't deleted since attribution was left in the article history, although not sure it was the best solution as I don't see a reason for the separate histories. By comparison, at least with the now deleted () article, I saw no indication the content came from anywhere else so AFAIK, it was not compliant with either licence so was definitely highly questionable IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is very much a minor detail in the scheme of this... incident, but the move from of the UK broadcaster from "Chris Hollins" to Chris J. Hollins was clearly incorrect. It's very much not his common name -- we've managed the remarkable feat of creating not just the top reference in google searches for that term but the only reference to this individual as such. (After all, people don't generally go by abbreviations of their first names with an initial -- real stylistic mishmash.) Could someone reverse this, or if the double-dab at Chris/Christopher is deemed necessary, to Chris Hollins (broadcaster), please? Or if this is remotely contestable, I'll of course take this to RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDudeYour response is inherently bias. First of all, there was a history merge request that was added to the initial change which I kept adding and which kept being deleted. Secondly, the rules do permit me to usurp a page which I diligently researched. Finally this is not my edit war. This edit war was begun by Primefacwho you chose not to reprimand or call to issue in anyway even though I’m the person who issued the complaint. Primefac also had a way of communicating in this forum which is unpleasant at best, and certainly rude as well as taking a tone that is intentionally superior. Regardless of whether he is, in this volunteer setting it is unnecessary - and leads me and probably others to understand him to be acting in bad faith. Note:

“It is permitted to usurp a page title for a new article, and it generally does not require administrative assistance, though good judgment should be used in determining if these are best positions for both the old and the new page.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Usurping_a_page_title

As a practicing litigator (and a fairly significant one), I more than understand how to read and follow some rules. What is against the rules is for you all to make your own rules in contravention of what the rules actually are.

If someone had a problem with my initial changes, they should have started a conversation about it. Rather they immediately decided to over rule my work without checking the rules themselves. And where edits were made with any respect or honor whatsoever, I did engage in conversation. That is not at all what Primefac did or event attempted to do.

It seems like although you say you appreciate my contributions, that’s not actually the case. I’m not getting paid to do this and I have no real stake in the fight other than to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the page, given the individuals pending candidacy and a desire to complete the work so I can move on to a different project that is currently underway. Unfortunately, the serious oversight and intensity of the editing war created by another, I can’t help but to believe is fueled by something derogatory or worse since moving the page was otherwise and entirely lawful act.

That all being said, I would like to elevate my complaint - and to the extent that is not done by virtue of this message - I will do it myself in another forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, why is there a dispute about retitling a page at all? That’s actually and honestly absurd given the ease by which a history merge request can be effectuated and was so requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think a page is improperly "named", and there is another page that has that name, the proper procedure is to open a requested move and explain why you think the page name(s) need to be changed. It is not correct to either copy and paste content into another page, or to create several redirects to new names. I don't think you are reading that section on "usurping pages" correctly, as this is for creating NEW articles. Natg 19 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because a problem can be fixed doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to create the problem in the first place requiring some other volunteer to fix it. Notably history merges are something only admins can do, and even for simple ones not all admins are comfortable doing them. Also, a problem can only be fixed it someone notices it. By making a cut and paste move and leaving no notice that you've done so, you've create a copyright violation until someone notices and fixes it. Since your a lawyer, you should be aware that a copyright violation is not acceptable. It doesn't matter when it can later be fixed, you've already violated someone's copyright and technically they could sue for the time when we were violating their copyright. As for the rest, I don't know how to make this any clearer but your understanding of the rules here is more or less completely wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I maybe should emphasise there are two issues which you seem to be conflating both of which are very important. One which I emphasised a lot is that the way you tried to move the page in two or more instances is wrong. You don't get to move pages by cutting and pasting the content around no matter that it can be fixed, our policies and guidelines make this clear so I suggest you re-read them if you think they allow it. The other issue is that even if you had performed the move correctly, it's clear that people disagree with your move because they are unconvinced about with your primary topic argument. To be clear, this means they don't just disagree with your move because it wasn't performed correctly but they disagree with the reasoning behind your move. When you make a bold move and it's disputed, as with any bold edit, it's perfectly fine for another editor to revert your edit. In fact especially in the case of page moves, it's completely the norm to return everything to the WP:status quo ante bellum which means all articles are returned to their original titles. If there's no status quo because it's a new page, then it will need to be moved to some interim title. What you then need to do is discuss your proposed change and come to consensus. In the case of page moves, the process is to start a full WP:RM. Technically you could move the page at an interim title around in the mean time to some other undisputed title, but it would generally be better to just focus on the RM. While all WP:Edit wars are disruptive, move wars are especially the case as noted in the earlier link. So you should never get involved in a move war and in so much as one may be said to already exist, they should always end with the reversion of an undiscussed move. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: This is the highest forum to wage a complaint against user conduct. And where did you make a merge request or requested move? I don't see any such edit in your contributions. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've moved "Chris J. Hollins" to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) in response to the quite reasonable request above. ChristaJwl, be very careful about commenting on the "legal" aspects of this matter. Deb (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm much obliged. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm reading too much into some of these choices of wording -- "litigator", "lawful act", "elevate my complaint" to "another forum" -- but you should perhaps also be aware of WP:LEGAL. I would also strongly urge you to redact your numerous and frankly baseless personal attacks on Primefac. Starting perhaps with the entirely inappropriate section title. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude every reversion included the merge history requests that I very quickly thanked another editor for adding after he reviewed my revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Christopher G. Hollins going to be moved to Chris Hollins (Attorney and Politician)? ChristaJwl (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tentatively suggest a move to Chris Hollins (politician) given our naming conventions, and on the basis of a quick google search. And ignoring the much more numerous for me references to the UK sport chap, it must be said. If there's some objection or contention, you could make a request on those (or some such) lines at WP:RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping by Nil Einne. Thanks for the ping. I haven't read all of this. In responding to the initial complaint by ChristaJwl, I would say, thank you for your efforts, and I hope the experience with this complaint does not make you want to leave Wikipedia in anger. You wouldn't be the first! I saw that you said you are a litigator and were following the rules. I'm sure you were trying to. Unlike law (I have a paralegal degree), for every rule here, there seems to be other rules that trump it. The hard part is that you haven't edited long enough to know what rules are the important ones.

For example, when you file a complaint here, you are supposed to provide WP:diffs, but you didn't. It makes it really hard for editors responding here to have any idea what you are talking about. We are not going to go on a wild goose chase looking through your edits, the page you refer to, or the other editor you are accusing trying to figure out what was happening. The burden is on your to provide that evidence.

In this case Nil Einne is correct that if you are going to do a page move or merge, you open up request and solicit input form other editors before doing the move or merge, unless it is a trivial move involving, for example, pages only you edited or pages with practically no content, etc. In this case, it seems you moved a page that had a long history without asking first. Not a good idea. As an editor with few edits, it's an understandable newbie mistake.

As for the tone of people responding you to you, I'm sorry if you experienced something unpleasant. Countless new editors experience it and leave. It's been a long-term problem on Wikipedia. I hope you stick it out. Because you didn't provide any WP:diffs for what you considered an inappropriate tone, it's hard to know what you are talking about. Lastly, I hope you take a look at the top of my user page under the "Advice to New Editors." I think some of it will be helpful. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or ping me on a note on your talk page. Good luck! --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Delightful thing to wake up to, not really bothered by what has been said (or by the section header).

As mentioned, Chris Hollins was moved to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) by the OP, and the content of Christopher G. Hollins was then copied there (diff). As the page had already been converted into a dab, that was reverted a few times but there was also a a histmerge request made. This is where I found the page, and upon recognising the older/dab history, I rolled back the base page to its dab form. After that it was mostly a series of reverts by the editors involved, including Mattythewhite (who I have notified of this ping as well). I left ChristaJwl a note followed by a warning, which I felt was appropriate given the other messages that had been left in edit summaries. After I protected the dab to prevent further disruption, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins was created (a straight copy-paste of the CGH article), plus there were another couple of warnings on their talk page, and I determined that a partial block was the only way to actually stop the disruption. And here we are. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Your actions seem to me to be above reproach. Deb (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Since it looks like the histories etc have been fixed and it seems to matter a big deal to the OP, I've boldly moved Christopher G. Hollins to Chris Hollins (politician) as suggested by the IP above. As I remarked when moving the page [64], all sources I looked at seem to use Chris Hollins & the 2 Hollins are from different countries active in different fields so there does not seem to be any natural disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB and the US Hollins notability seems to come from their involvement in politics, so it seems to me to be the best disambiguation if it's needed. I felt I wasn't furthering the move war since that seems to be mostly about the primary topic with some unfortunate very poorly implemented attempts at parenthetical disambiguation that followed. My move isn't intended as commentary on the primary topic, that can be resolved via an RM if needed, instead my hope is that this will reduce the OP's apparent concerns about the old title and allow them to focus on whether they want an RM to establish whether either Hollins is the primary topic. I'd note that the same outcome could likely have been achieved without all this drama if the OP had simply asked on the talk page, and then sought feedback elsewhere if there was no response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My hot take is that of Hollinses, the UK one is likely somewhat the more notable, especially over time. But I'm also aware that I might be being biased by which one I'd actually heard of, and by google's fiendish algorithms second-guessing me too. I'm far from certain that he'd pass the standard of being much more likely to be the one sought, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The TX chap is conversely slightly the more recently newsworthy, and might be about to become more notable, or drastically less so, depending on his political fortunes. Nor are these two necessarily the be-all and end-all of all possible Chrises Hollins that people could be looking for -- I happened across two others while checking. So I'd favour not troubling RM at present, and find the status quo largely satisfactory. Glossing over the bumps in how we got there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@David Tornheim Thank you for the feedback, encouragement and advice. I'll leave this here and take you up on your offer to review the information on your user page. Best and, in good faith, thanks to @Nil Einne for the move. --ChristaJwl (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Block request concerning Varamin.metro

Hi, the user User:Varamin.metro has made vandal Edits.Karim185.3 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by LuK3. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent revision for public information/health' sakes.

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

---

I refer to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconitum and any other wiki pages that may mention monkshood and wolfsbane.

Section: Color range A medium to dark semi-saturated blue-purple is the typical flower color for Aconitum species. Aconitum species tend to be variable enough in form and color in the wild to cause debate and confusion among experts when it comes to species classification boundaries. The overall color range of the genus is rather limited, although the palette has been extended a small amount with hybridization. In the wild, some Aconitum blue-purple shades can be very dark. In cultivation the shades do not reach this level of depth.

Aside from blue-purple—white, very pale greenish-white, creamy white, and pale greenish-yellow are also somewhat common in nature. Wine red (or red-purple) occurs in a hybrid of the climber Aconitum hemsleyanum. There is a pale semi-saturated pink produced by cultivation as well as bicolor hybrids (e.g. white centers with blue-purple edges). Purplish shades range from very dark blue-purple to a very pale lavender that is quite greyish. The latter occurs in the "Stainless Steel" hybrid.

This is, from observation, misinformation that appears all over the internet. I grow the real Monkshood, and am also familiar with Wolfsbane, which is not purple but white through yellow with different flowerheads, which you can verify for yourself. These plants are fully toxic and it is crucial to be clear that they are different.

Please research Monkshood under Aconitum napellus and Wolfsbane under Aconitum vulparia. These are two entirely disparate plants that do not cross-pollinate.

I do not think I should just edit, I would rather an experienced editor would verify what I've said and make relevant corrections in view of the risk to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.89.171 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to seek help with editing articles. I suggest you post this to Talk:Aconitum. However just to let you know that unless you have WP:reliable sources to verify any of this, we cannot add it to any articles as we cannot rely on any editor's WP:original research. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's OK, visitor: on the face of it this does potentially look like a public health issue. Thank you for bringing it up, and I undertake to look into it and make any needful corrections.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes: I've verified this and added the requisite information to the article. This can be closed I think.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Move closed

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

---

A move discussion at Talk:LGBT adoption reached a consensus to change the name. Can an admin please make the change. (sorry if this the wrong venue) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: For future reference, the correct place is WP:RMTR. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Admin Reorientation

Are there any reasonably active admins who would be interested in conducting a reorientation for old admins such as myself who'd like to pick up the mop again? Many of the technical and/or cultural changes of the past years may be dissuading some old-timers from making a gainful return to the wiki they loved so well. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope you can get back up to speed, but the mood towards long inactive administrators returning with their mops is not so friendly right now. You've made less than 500 edits in the last 15 years, so expect some push back. But welcome back and good luck. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• You can start here: WP:ADMINGUIDE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for showing interest in coming back! Which areas are you interested in? Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is good reading if you're interested in that. I'd recommend reading all the way through WP:CSD regardless, as several criterion have been revoked by the community over the last two years. A big debate is SNG vs GNG for notability on some topics (mainly sports figures right now); that can get kinda nasty at times so I'd encourage you to hold off on any AfD closing in that area until you've worked up a bit more active. If you're interested in main page stuff, WP:DYK always needs more admin help and would be willing to give you a refresher/crash course. What specific areas are you interested in working in? Hog Farm _Talk 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I could be of help in requests for protection. Many changes there, not the least the introduction of pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to cover AfDs for those that have that as a focus area - while Hog is absolutely right regarding the current furor area, I'm happy to cover the field more broadly, whether for Babajobu or others.

  In fact, the idea in general is very interesting - perhaps we should have a page with volunteers broken into admin-action categories for those interested in getting reacquainted. More broadly, just getting out and doing the core mission of some content edits is good for picking up changed norms in that area. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• You have made a number of uses of the admin tools, as recently as 2019. You are not as inactive as you think, or as others above think. ☺ You already know about pending changes, for example, because you set it on Eric Reguly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice. Some of the cultural changes are good things. We are nowhere near as willing to keep articles in the bands, businesses, and biographies parts of Wikipedia as we were in 2004/2005. But again, you know this. You deleted Deori Kalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) last year. Three simple principles will keep you away from lots of minefields: Don't use the deletion, protection, or blocking tools to win arguments in your favour. Be prepared to talk to people. Don't rush to closure. And since you were around in the early 2000s, you can tell Hog Farm what the schools notability debate was like. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for getting back to active mopping; we need all the help we can get! My suggestion is to pick an area to concentrate on rather than trying to do a little of everything. That way, you'll get up to speed on that specific area. In my own experience, I find I'm much more likely to do something stupid when I wander into an area I don't usually work in, thinking I'll just help out a bit. Often, it's more like a bull in a china shop.
  The big take-away from the recent crop of arbcom cases is that everybody understands that admins are human and make mistakes, but as long as you're quick to admit you goofed and revert your action, nobody's going to get too bent out of shape. It's when admins dig in their heels and refuse to talk about an issue that things go bad. If there's anything specific that you're unsure about, feel free to drop a question on my talk page, or if you prefer, email me. And, if I might do a bit of recruiting for the area I'm working in these days, WP:SPI can always use more patrolling admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And, of course, always remember to sign your posts Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And date them, too... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• If the currently suspended recent admin conduct cases had proceeded, I would very much expect them to have centered around the admin in questions understanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Those are really important points to keep in mind. I'd add that coming here and asking this shows more clue than some other recently returned admins, so you're off to a good start. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you link me to those abortive cases? Curious where said admins got mixed up on WP:INVOLVED. Thanks. Babajobu (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for returning! Most admins don't bite and will probably be happy to answer any questions – it might be a good idea to watch areas of interest for a while, figure out which sysops are prolific in those areas, and reach out on their talk pages whenever questions arise. I'll also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators has some pointers that may be useful. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the input. Reorientation syllabus has been provided! Babajobu (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Spam whitelist is backlogged

I will appreciate if some admins volunteer to handle the backlog at the spam whitelist. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another Nigerian hashtag problem

I came across Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria today because one of their members was violating WP:OVERLINK on a number of pages. This is far from the first time this has happened, with this ANI thread being the latest discussion on the noticeboards about the matter. I have handed out a number of warnings, and a couple of participants have been blocked for failing to respond to multiple reverts and talk page requests to stop, and I have also left this blunt message on the Meetup's talk page; they keep telling folks to just "add wikilinks!" without actually telling them how to do so.

Current hashtags: #W4HRNG, #W4HROWR, #W4HRLAG.

This is one part discussion on how we can sort this out amicably, and one part heads-up that over the next 24 hours (and then until April) we're likely to be hit with a ton of these hashtag edits. Tracking can be done with https://hashtags.wmcloud.org as well as edit filter 1017, assuming it gets updated by whomever said on IRC that they'd update it. Thanks for the vigilance. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the organizers have followed up or followed through on my previous complaints and I don't think a filter is sufficient given the massive disruption at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this does look disruptive. I have never seen a competition with prizes have a beneficial effect here, but that just may be because I only see those ones that cause a problem. Can anyone show any useful such competitions? If not, then I would suggest that we ban competitions with prizes from the English (because that's the only one we have control over) Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest is a fine one. DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a chronic problem with edit-a-thons. The idea is supposed to be to get new editors but what tends to happen instead is a bunch of people making clueless edits for the duration of the event, admins having to block the most persistent ones, and then the event ends and the new users never come back. It's essentially self-defeating for everyone involved. The addition of hashtags is a new thing I don't think I've seen before. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The addition of hashtags is a new thing... at least it makes it easy to track their edits. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that trying to ban such events is probably a bad idea as it would just encourage them to be organized off-wiki and we'd have even less of a chance to get through to the organizers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1073 generalised to cover this contest. No actions beyond tagging and logging, but of course this can be changed if needed and consensus is found. firefly ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kluaynamthai

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

---

Personal attack. Can an admin please address it and do a revdel on please. scope_creep^Talk 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Took care of the edits. Will address with the IP now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ripples at White phosphorus munitions

I was reading in the news about reports of Russians using white phosphorus munitions (ie. in bombs), and came here to read up on the topic. I was not at all surprised to see that the article had been updated with the reported usage in Ukraine; what was surprising is that the wording made it sound like an absolute occurrence (no use of quotes of reported use, etc.). Checking the sources reveals that one is a website with an extremely pro-Ukrainian/anti-Russian slant, and the second source appears to be someone's website space.

I am aware of the limited sources of news from within Ukraine, and that residents are reporting what they see through whatever means they can, but it doesn't seem like it belongs here in the article yet.

I've reverted the content out and initiated discussion on the talk page. I am thinking that this edit is another ripple of propaganda one way or the other, and we should probably stay out of it without the mightiest of reliable sources.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is probably a good topic for discussion at WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should I move the section to there, or link to this section there? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)