Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SharabSalam (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 2 June 2020 (→‎Censoring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

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

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

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

    Requests for closure

    There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial # 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial # 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

      The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

      I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

      Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

      I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

      As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

      Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

      If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

      More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

      This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

      Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

    Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

    Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Wikipedia, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Wikipedia, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible solutions going forward

    I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

    • The nominator has requested the close
    • A participant in the RFC has requested the close
    • The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
    • An administrator has requested the close
    • If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

    Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. I used to close RFC's all the time until I was asked to slow down/stop. I have not done as many closings since then. If there is a desire for more clerking on that board, I wouldn't mind helping out. A lot has changed since I stopped clerking it, but I have played it safe by avoiding doing so because I am not an admin. Would folks mind at all too much that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion or should I still avoid doing so? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd want to see why people asked you to stop. But there is generally no need for an admin to close things. I've gone trough that list and closed a number of them when I've had time. I think it's useful (and honestly I may start asking people at RfA if they've closed many, seems like a darn good way to judge people's ability to gauge consensus and explain their thoughts. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can provide you the reasoning later tonight when I'm on Desktop. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hobit: As you can see here, several admins had major WP:CIR concerns with me; so my adopter, Swarm requested I hold off on closing discussions for the time being. That was a little more than a year ago now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @MJL: Just so we're clear, you've moved well past the point of ruffling feathers as a newbie and absolutely no part of me thinks that any of that unfortunate episode is still relevant today. You know that, right? ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Swarm: I do! It's just that you never responded when I asked if I should start closing things again a few months ago. 😅 –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh man, I'm sorry MJL. :( I've had a bad habit lately of clearing talk page notifications with the intention of coming back to them, and then forgetting about the messages. That reminds me, I should go check on that right now. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Swarm: lmao it's all good! I do the same thing tbh It gets worse when you admin on another wiki.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem was, as Tony said, one user consistently flooding the board over the course of years. Said user has recieved the renewed complaints at this time and has made a pledge to substantially scale back their use of the board. I don't see the need to implement bureaucratic regulations in response to one specific problem that has resolved itself. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazon corporate blocks (including 205.251.232.0/22's block)

    Hello, it seems that 205.251.232.0/22 isn't actually an AWS range, "merely" owned by Amazon. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file for further details. Could you please have a look? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Martin Urbanec: There's some unusual WHOIS records in that range, and some other things that say to me that at least some of it is part of their corporate network. Some of the later edits also look a bit specialized. Unless anyone has some contrary views I'm happy to unblock it - we have the /20 blocked so I'll take a chance on unblocking that. You know it's also globally blocked, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment zzuuzz. I'm aware of the global block, I just wanted to wait with removing the global one, in case some enwiki admin sees something I didn't :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I figure it'll probably be best to convert it to a local soft block rather than unblocking, to help deter someone just hard blocking it again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: I've just removed the global portion. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: Why do you think it's better to convert this to a soft block? I don't understand that part. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll admit it's not ideal, but there are two scenarios a soft block avoids. First, a lot of Amazon blocking is done by bot, from the IP file, and the bots will (or should) exclude any ranges already blocked. Second, if there's anon editing then someone someday will look up the WHOIS, see Amazon, and just hard block it again. A soft block allowing account creation is not a great burden for the end user, and I'm sure they will understand without feeling offended or put upon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi zzuuzz, I'm the one who brought this block up with Martin Urbanec.
    It seems to me that blocking Amazon by bot, or based on a single glance at the WHOIS, is problematic. Some of Amazon's published IP ranges are used for the public-facing IP addresses of EC2, which provisions virtual machines that can run arbitrary applications, such as sending arbitrary Internet traffic. However, other Amazon IP ranges are not used for this purpose; the documentation of the public IP ranges go to some length to clarify the distinction. The services that run from other Amazon IP ranges are things like databases, storage, logging, etc., and simply don't allow running arbitrary code.
    Other large cloud providers also provide detailed information on their IP address ranges (e.g. Microsoft Azure IP ranges, Google Compute Platform IP ranges and a script to enumerate them easily). Amazon appears to control about 1.4% of the total (!) IPv4 address space, if I did my calculations correctly based on the published ranges, and I would guess that including cloud infrastructure from other large companies increases this total several-fold.
    In my opinion, the description put on these blocks ("open proxy") is confusing and probably exacerbates the lack of feedback from users about IP ranges that have been erroneously blocks. It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a block message that says something like, "Your current IP address has been identified as belonging to public cloud computing environment XYZ."
    Also, it appears that English Wikipedia (at least) doesn't have a clear policy on whether or not it's reasonable to impose IP blocks on IP ranges belong to public cloud computing platforms; it seems to me that they fall under the general category of shared IP addresses, but this is pretty vague. While there is obviously potential for abuse of these services, because they allow users to provision IP addresses that are not easily associated with their "normal" home networks, there are also many legitimate reasons to use them, or even why particular users can't escape them. (A lot of corporate networks and VPNs' egress points go through such clouds.)
    If there's a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue of how public cloud IPs should be treated on Wikimedia sites, please do let me know. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moxfyre: Thank you for bringing this up. For the record, I do deal a lot with IP addresses and open proxies, and situations like this, but I do not get involved with the mass blocking of these ranges - when I do I do it as conservatively as possible. Having had some memorable experiences with Leaseweb and SoftLayer a long time ago, I fully recognise the various useful (and often restricted) apps that can use these services, and I try and impart this message at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the main users involved in blocking these ranges are not currently very active, but I'll be sure to point this out to them at the next opportunity. Although having said that, who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?
    The blocking of AWS generally falls under the 'anonymising proxy' policy, which is fairly liberal on this wiki, when you look closely. I do happen to know the latest round of blocking was kicked off by some rampant vandalism hopping all over the AWS ranges, and we had no choice but to step on it. It wasn't the first time either.
    I would be in favour of both a better template for the blocking reason, and an informative page about data centres including clouds and compute hosts (or these providers generally). We could also provide specific information about collateral risks. We don't currently have that. It might take a little momentum to kick it off, probably starting with an essay and some discussion at the village pump, with notifications for the blocking policy and the open proxy policy pages. These discussions can get easily derailed by people wanting full editing from open proxies and such, but a focused discussion might be of use. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best way would be just to do some editing to the template with a brief information page. I know I have a significantly more liberal view on mass blocks than you do, but I don't really think policy-wise much should/needs to change. We allow for mass blocks of ranges and since SQL and ST47 started doing this systematically locally (as well as Jon Kolbert globally), we've seen a real decrease in certain types of abuse, particularly when it comes to spam sock farms and POV-pushers trying to evade CU... it's just much harder now than it was 5 or even 1 year ago. I think linking to a page explaining this to people might be a good idea, but getting a wiki-wide effort going to rework a policy that has achieved very good practical results precisely because of how broad it is would not be something I think would benefit us. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, Thanks for the ping.
    It has happened once or twice that I've seen where Amazon retires a range. I've unblocked a few of these over the years, and prior to my break, I was watching for them.
    However, that is not the case here.
    This range appears directly in https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json.
    {
    "ip_prefix": "205.251.232.0/22",
    "region": "us-west-2",
    "service": "AMAZON",
    "network_border_group": "us-west-2"
    },
    This is an amazon AWS range, per amazon Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file. To maintain history, save successive versions of the .json file on your system. To determine whether there have been changes since the last time that you saved the file, check the publication time in the current file and compare it to the publication time in the last file that you saved.. SQLQuery me! 23:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the other range appears here:
    {
    "ip_prefix": "205.251.224.0/22",
    "region": "us-east-1",
    "service": "AMAZON",
    "network_border_group": "us-east-1"
    }, SQLQuery me! 23:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni and SQL: as I wrote above linking to the same source, these are not Amazon EC2 ranges. That document goes to some length to clarify the difference between EC2 ranges and non-EC2 ranges. The bottom line is that the non-EC2 ranges don't contain virtual machines where the public can run arbitrary code. This one here happens to host [some] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxfyre, I don't know how to clarify beyond Amazon's own words. Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file.. It sucks if they choose to mix in corporate ranges, but it seems from that quote that these are AWS ranges. Affected people can request IPBE - I know this because I've granted it many times for this very reason. SQLQuery me! 23:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SQL: Yes, it sucks for Wikimedia (and for Amazon employees trying to edit Wikipedia) that AWS ranges are mixed in with corporate ranges; Amazon (and Microsoft Azure) are known for dogfooding so it's probably not too surprising that some of their corporate services run from IP ranges that are associated with their public cloud services. To also quote Amazon's own words, To allow an instance to access only AWS services, create a security group with rules that allow outbound traffic to the CIDR blocks in the AMAZON list, minus the CIDR blocks that are also in the EC2 list. IP addresses in the EC2 list can be assigned to EC2 instances (emphasis mine).
    What this is saying is that only the IP ranges described as EC2 can be used to provision arbitrary public virtual machines. The others are not used for this purpose, and it does not make sense to block them, at least not on the grounds that a member of the public could use them to cheaply get a new IP address. (The document could be much more explicit and clear about this.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: "who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?" Hah, true! Presumably no one. I was just listing those as examples of things that shouldn't be blocked. The reason that this block came up is because it was also including [some of] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. Obviously there are cases where blocks are warranted due to sustained abuse or PoV editing, but I believe that in general you try to avoiding blocking networks just because they're associated with the employees of particular organizations, even large and powerful ones.
    A lot of users connect from networks which do render their traffic effectively anonymous (IPv4 NATs with too many hosts behind them, institutional network egress points) even though anonymity is not the users' intention. I will try to kick something off over on the Village Pump. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have always been very accommodating to employees of these server firms using the corporate parts of their network. I'd also agree that part of this network is their corporate network. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz, Based on...? Direct ARIN whois doesn't mention anything along those lines. SQLQuery me! 23:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adjust that link a little. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zzuuzz, Martin Urbanec, and SQL:, there's another range which has also been erroneously hard-blocked for the same reason: 54.240.196.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). It's also apparently used for Amazon corporate network egress. As with the others listed here, this one is erroneously described as an “open proxy”, whereas it is in fact an AWS but not EC2 range from Amazon's docs (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file).

    Could you convert this one to a softblock as has been done for the other ranges discussed? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Moxfyre, I’ll let SQL look at this more, but based on the discussion above, I think IPBE for any user who is actually affected is the best way forward and that the hard blocks should likely remain in place. There have been zero actual complaints from real people using these ranges. I don’t think proactively unblocking AWS ranges that may theoretically be used by an amazon corporate employee makes any sense at all. If they’re having issues, we have a tool to make an exception for them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: The discussion above should make it clear that these are unambiguously not IP ranges which are available to the general public for running virtual machines that can send traffic to the public Internet. They are not open proxies by Wikipedia's lose definition.
    I am an actual person actually affected by these ranges, and brought them to the attention of admins and stewards as mistaken based on Amazon's own published data. I know of others affected by them… I conjecture that one reason no one has complained is because the error messages are confusing and do not suggest that someone has made a mistake. Known-affected and motivated-to-do-something individuals aside…
    Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of not hard-blocking IP ranges when there is no rational motivation to do so?
    Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of removing blocks when a previous rational motivation is confirmed to be mistaken? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. I have given you IPBE to help deal with this. That was the simplest solution. This also impacts some people on Amtrak and Virgin trains, since both of those use AWS to provide in train internet. For the handful of people that impacts, we give IPBE. AWS is used as an anonymizing tool and typically falls within our understanding of what should be blocked. We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption. For the extremely small minority of editors who get caught in inadvertent collateral, it is much easier to just give them IPBE. I’ve done that for you now. You shouldn’t have any more issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. Not quite right. What I've shown is that the entirety of the specific ranges named in this section (205.251.232.0/22, 205.251.224.0/20, and now 54.240.196.0/24) are categorically not available for provisioning EC2 virtual machines. There might well be some justification for blocking them, but "can be used as anonymizing proxies" is not a rational justification. "This IP is in an AWS range" is an insufficient condition for judging an IP to be available as an anonymizing proxy, and I'm trying to demonstrate that the additional information needed to make this determination is straightforwardly available.
    We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption Wiki(p|m)edia shouldn't be hard-blocking AWS in its entirety; while I have some qualms about hard-blocking EC2 in its entirety, that would at least be consistent with the "anonymizing proxy" justification.
    I greatly appreciate you giving me the the IPBE, but I'm not really concerned about myself; I know how to split-tunnel and use a variety of other techniques to more-or-less-effortlessly ensure my traffic is not subject to such blocks. I'm much more concerned that Wikipedia is excluding a very large chunk of the IPv4 address space by overly-broad blocking of address ranges that are associated with large cloud providers, and thus quite likely catching many would-be editors as collateral damage.
    The fact that these are hard blocks which cannot be avoided by creating an account using a less-suspicious IP and then logging in while using a more-suspicious IP makes this problem much worse. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is impacted for a reason like yours, they are free to request IPBE and it will be granted quite liberally. Currently three total people including yourself have requested it that I’m aware of for similar reasons. Two for trains and one for you. There might be a handful of others, but I follow IPBE on these ranges fairly closely. It’s not having a vast impact.
    As a whole, AWS is very likely to continue to be blocked globally as well as locally as a hosting provider. These blocks have done a significant amount of good reducing abuse with extremely limited collateral. It is far easier and takes significantly less manpower to block all of it than to identify individual ranges that are used by Amazon corporate or for things like train wifi. It just makes more sense to block AWS and grant IPBE as needed, and you’re likely to see that trend continue both here and at the steward level. It’s a question of limited resources and preventing significant harm. There’s always going to be some collateral with any range block. The question is how we deal with it. There’s no indication we’re being overwhelmed with valid IPBE requests. That’s the easiest way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While y'all are discussing things I don't understand, the vandalism goes on and on. This is the third one today, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review of a case of hostile and combative editing

    I am requesting a review of the behavior editor GPinkerton in the talk page of Gothic Architecture. I think he has been extremely aggressive and hostile in his commentary, while repeatedly undoing edits he doesn't approve. I hope someone might ask him to treat other editors little more calmly, to tone down his language, to be a little more respectful of other opinions, and to be more open to cooperation instead of confrontation. It might calm things down. I have notified him on his talk page that I am writing to this Notice Board. Thanks very much for your help. . SiefkinDR (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @SiefkinDR: The only edits I have undone are the ones already opposed by myself and others on the talkpage, or those which manifestly contradict the reliable sources, and in both of these cases it is obviously impossible that consensus is in favour of SiefkinDR's edits, which mostly are geared towards adding acres of blank space to articles by shoehorning badly formatted galleries into every section and then shoehorning all other images into these galleries, regardless of their size, shape, or relative importance. I have also had to make a number of changes to avoid WP:UNDUE weight being given to SiefkinDR's favourite French mediaeval cathedrals. Others I have had to remove as undue weight given to Gothic architecture itself where such is not merited, as at Rib vault. I have many times explained why SiefkinDR's additions are not helpful in this respect, but they continue to blithely edit regardless, forcing their beloved "packed" galleries into every conceivable article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this response by GPinkerton gives a good idea of how he communicates with me and other editors. See also his commentary on Rib vault. Could someone please just remind him that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a continual battle? Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban

    I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, while others with many more blocks than me have been allowed to edit in this area. I enjoy this topic area and I hope to contribute more fully for the betterment of our online encyclopedia, if given the opportunity to do so.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non admin comment) Davidbena I am going to suggest that you need to address the issues that brought the ban about in the first place. To quote from the close of your last appeal "...while requesting to lift the topic ban, to come up with specific suggestions what type of articles they would like to edit and how best to avoid the controversies in articles of this type, and what to do if other editors disagree with the edits." In my experience just waiting for time to pass without addressing the previous issues is usually a non-starter. This is just a suggestion on my part and you will get reactions from admins in due course. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, MarnetteD. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (make corrections, etc.) in this field.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to post this Davidbena. I don't know how things will go but this is a positive first step. MarnetteD|Talk 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to the TBAN discussion. Note that this is actually Davidbena's second TBAN, which was enacted pretty shortly after he successfully petitioned for the lifting of the original one, and then resumed problematic behavior; two topic bans in the same area in less than two years is a lot of rope. Also, note that The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. is only a part of what drew the second TBAN. I hope that Davidbena will be more honest about their past behavior in this appeal. Reserving my vote until I see more acknowledgment of the problems on display as recently as that last appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be more specific, I had actually thought that two co-editors were stalking me because of their "opposite" political views. Does this help? As I said, I can get along with them. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our important online encyclopedia. If you're counting the number of topic bans, both the editors with whom I contended have a greater number of topic bans in the same area than myself, and, yet, they are free to edit. I have no complaints about that, but hope that admins here will be impartial to my case. By the way, I will be unable to answer here for the next two days, as one of Israel's holidays is commencing this evening.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block of Валко per NOTHERE

    I indefinitely blocked Валко this morning per WP:NOTHERE. Whereas I think this is a good block, on a second thought, there are a couple of issues which I outlined below which could make it better if the community reviews it. The user essentially does not speak English, they have been indefblocked in the Russian Wikipedia and moved here. Their interest is mainly the Russian Volga autonomy republics such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. They have some unorthodox views on the history of these republics, not shared by other users and not particularly based on reliable sources - whereas they sometimes seem like an expert fighting against a bunch of profanes, a closer inspection shows that they reject mainstream academic sources and refer to interviews and this kind of less reliable sources. A good example of their modus operandi is here: Talk:Bashkortostan#Soviet Encyclopedia Now Russian Encyclopedia where they use a bunch of sources to combine the conclusions (original synthesis) to come to an opposite conclusion to what a reliable encyclopedia states. This was going on for years on the Russian Wikipedia before they were indefblocked, and it subsequently was continued here, against the same opponents. They also tried to edit the Russian Wikivoyage, where I blocked them, because their main idea was to introduce a bunch of detains which were possibly wrong but most certainly unnecessary for the project and out of scope, and after the block they continued to send me these details by wikimail, presumably trying to convince me that I am wrong. (We very rarely, I would even say exceptionally, block users there who are not spambots or vandals). This was my only intersection with them, I never interacted with them on the English Wikipedia. However, since I have not even given a warning to them and blocked straight indef, and since I might seem to be involved because of my Wikivoyage block, I think it would be better if uninvolved admin(s) would look at my block. If somebody needs Russian translations, I can assist with them. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As a starting note, INVOLVED specifically notes that if you've only had prior administrative interaction with them, then you wouldn't be involved, which would also seem to apply cross-project. @Ymblanter: - on Russian Wikipedia, did they edit any other areas than these ones? That is, the indef could be justified if they're only here to campaign for their points, or indeed if their English is so bad that CIR applies (though that wouldn't be a straight block to me). Were they not indeffed on Russian wiki, I might be more inclined to suggest a couple of TBANs (though that would require sufficient ability/willingness to engage here), but with it, it's probably a good call - I'll be certain when I can do a longer check. Yours, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: I will answer all questions, show sources and documents. I'm not a vandal. Валко (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Duplicated from user's TP Nosebagbear (talk)
    Thanks a lot. I think this is part of the problem. Did anybody say the user is a vandal? I am pretty sure they will be able to come up with a lot of links in Russian to read. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, next time you should use uw-indefblock — the once the block has expired bit in the standard time-limited block message could be confusing for new users. El_C 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's the one I was never able to find though I knew it exists--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    decision ru:Арбитраж:Игнорирование АИ Despite the absence of a detailed analysis of the authority of sources in the discussions, a wider recognition of 1919 as the year of foundation of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (albeit under a different name and in a smaller territory) was shown in these discussions.
    Under a different name and in a smaller territory. I suggest as in the article Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic
    The Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic) [1] and [2] [3]
    @Ymblanter: You said that I was not a vandal. Then why blocked? Валко (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
    There were multiple edits by the user here, with the number of templates not making it smoothly drop into a quote template Nosebagbear (talk)
    @Валко: - you weren't blocked for being a vandal (you weren't trying to damage the encyclopedia). You were blocked for being here more to advance a specific agenda/pov and convince others rather than enhancing the general encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nosebagbear:, I’m not promoting anything, it’s well known, but for some reason they want to hide it. The Republic was formed under the name Bashkir Soviet Republic User talk:Ezhiki#User Валко and his original researches on the Bashkortostan topics Валко

    @ Nosebagbear : On March 20, 1919, as a result of the signing of the “agreement of the Central Soviet Government with the Bashkir government on the Soviet Autonomous Bashkiria”, the autonomy of Bashkur-Distan was recognized by the central authorities and transformed into the Bashkir Soviet Republic (BSR), as well as the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (ADB ) [thirteen]. ru: Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic # Official names of the republic , So what's the problem? Valko ( talk ) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)"

    Emily Ratajkowski

    Should this type of edit not be striked out? [4], Seems somewhat vile of a post. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. El_C 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, 👍 Govvy (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Death of George Floyd

    I would like for an uninvolved admin to consider topic banning "All Lives Matter" editor User:Frozenranger. While they aren't responsible for starting a rather ridiculous thread on the talk page (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#The_point_of_races_in_the_lead--yes, there are seriously a few editors who want to whitewash the mentions of race out of that article, pace all reliable sources and common sense), they are responsible for a number of really insensitive forum posts, and for a condescending remark toward User:EvergreenFir. Another user, User:RandomCanadian, managed to remove the police officer's race from the article, twice, and posted a number of puzzling remarks on the talk page (essentially questioning/denying that race had been discussed as a relevant matter in the coverage by reliable sources), but they haven't lowered themselves to forumposting yet.

    I'm asking for another admin since I, Muboshgu, and EvergreenFir will likely be seen as involved. Please note that both Frozenranger and RandomCanadian were notified of AP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions; Frozenranger reverted that. Thank you. Oh, and please close that ridiculous conversation, since EvergreenFir's list of reliable sources should make sufficiently clear that those who want to erase race from the article (or the lead) have no leg to stand on. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither the article talk page nor the user in question had received a discretionary sanctions notice/alert. I have now done so. El_C 20:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: - The user had indeed been notified: [5]. They promptly removed it ([6]) and minutes later removed the race of the officer from the article ([7]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I seem to have missed that in Drmies' opening. Anyway, actions are as follows: I have partially blocked the user from the mainspace article, but they may have one last chance in contributing to the article talk page (and other talk pages, including this noticeboard report), so long as they start adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines from now on. Failure to do so may result in a topic ban or other sanctions. I have also closed that article talk page discussion, see my closing summary at the top. El_C 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LTA hoaxer

    Do any of the old-timers remember who that fool was who kept inventing American wars? One of their socks was User talk:FrancoRussoGreco , and I just CU-blocked User talk:MinnesotaMapping. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't looked at any of the CU data, but is it Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amarjeetpardeep? ST47 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, maybe it's his Indian cousin. No, this guy does American stuff, and it reminds me of someone from a few years ago, but I don't think I was directly involved in it, and I sure don't remember. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Perhaps you're thinking of the Upper Peninsula War. Style is similar, but that article was from 2007, and the creator doesn't seem to have any publicly documented socks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the war I was initially thinking of, thanks--but I'm pretty sure this is not related. What I saw, a few years ago maybe, was more recent. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at UAA

    There has been a backlog at UAA since yesterday, and it just keeps on getting longer. Can some uninvolved admin kindly help out? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    REVDEL request

    Can an admin please give a second opinion to this WP:REVDEL request and act (or not act) as appropriate? I don't do enough Revdeling to feel confident in acting on this. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely revdelete — serious BLP grounds. Anyway, I have now done so. El_C 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for Kobi Arad

    Deleted, salted (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I failed to create an AfD for Kobi Arad. Don't know what is the issue. There was an error saying it is blacklisted. - Thebiv19 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This thing back again? There was some paid editing ring around this a few years back. I remember having deleted at least one copy of the article and blocking a few socks involved in that ring. If I'm not mistaken the title was salted too. Don't know why AfD link is blacklisted though. I think the AfD title might've been blacklisted accidentally after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. Maybe someone who deals with blackists can shed some light. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I started the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination)‎, but it could still do with User:Thebiv19's rationale, as nominator :) ——Serial # 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who want the timeline, it's in the log files, though you might have to do a little digging via Special:Log. See Special:Diff/928367156. The page was created at Koby Arad, reviewed by ComplexRational via Wikipedia:PageTriage, and moved to Kobi Arad by admin Anthony Appleyard. Yunshui ran a check on the page creator (PelicanBaySquad) and said he was unrelated to the sockmaster. The blacklist is still active, but it was evaded by using an alternate spelling. The title blacklist cites Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad as justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've re-WP:SALTed the article, given it was deleted under CSD:G5. Pretty much done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page warning notice

    Could someone take a look at a "talk page warning notice" discussion? -- Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Otr500, I set it to expire. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The bizarre thing is that I couldn't see any notice whatsoever instructing me to do or desist from anything. Where'd it go? ——Serial # 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it magic? Hopefully to the "Not really the best worded template subject" Wikipedia boneyard. Thanks, -- ~~

    Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

    The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

      • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
      • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

    Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

    For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

    Block review

    I have blocked this user indefinitely because despite numerous messages and a previous block, they continue to add material, including to BLPs, without citing sources. Of their 500 edits to date, 499 are to mainspace, the sole edit outside mainspace was this following a warning from Materialscientist. Anyone is welcome to unblock if the user begins to WP:ENGAGE, or to convert to a partial block from article space or something, or shorten it. Guy (help!) 22:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Guy: If the goal is to get the user to communicate more, I have to imagine a mainspace partial block would be much more effective than a straight indef. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw of Afd

    Hi friends. I made a mistake on this Afd. Could you please close it? Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Well, strictly someone agreed with you—invalidating WP:SK#1—but since they are *ahem* an inexperienced user, NOTBURO came into play... ——Serial # 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: You might want to double check what you wrote in the close, "the only keep vote" you mean "the only delete vote" I am sure. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ha! Thanks Govvy. Now re-caffinated  :) ——Serial # 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    George Floyd protests

    I know that most admins here are aware of the George Floyd protests article but I think there is not enough attention. The article is flooded by many new and old accounts who are editing the article rapidly. It is hard to follow up, there are editwars and disruptive, POV edits in between these rapid edits that you can't notice. Many new editors are unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned on ANI, I have move protected the page, indefinitely. I have also just enacted a one month moratorium on any further move requests following a flood of these which was beginning to hinder the stability of the article. El_C 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have now also extended the moratorium to the subarticles. I'm not prepared to allow the same conversation to be conducted from one article to the next when it was already addressed in the parent article. El_C 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the moratorium; there've been many RMs in a short period of time, and enough is enough. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination of NOTHERE block template for deletion

    TFD closed, discussion at VPP. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The template {{Uw-nothereblock}} has been nominated for discussion at TfD here. Given that this is a built-in block reason at Special:Block along with the standard block/warn extensions, I am bringing it here for wider discussion. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I noted at here, if you use the {{Uw-nothereblock}} template while the discussion is ongoing, a notification appears on the blocked user's talk page above the block message inviting them to join the discussion at TfD. This is not ideal for a number of reasons (e.g. an invitation to block evasion, potential confusion as to how to appeal the block), so admins should be aware of the issue while the TfD discussion is ongoing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, as I already noted, this seems like a WP:POINTy TfD that is actively disrupting the project. El_C 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closure needed at RfC at WT:NFC

    Can an admin that hasn't participated yet please close Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames? It has been open for two months, and while it was close to 50/50 in the beginning, there's now about twice as much opposition as there is support.

    I intend to put a few proposals on that page (unrelated to the one above), and have been holding off until this one is closed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, I've closed it as unsuccessful and removed the do-not-archive template. ~ mazca talk 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Michael Brown "recently deceased"?

    Michael Brown died almost six years ago. Should Shooting of Michael Brown remain under DS-BLP? The article gets little attention these days, aside from a steady trickle of uninformed, quickly reverted edits by unregistered or low-time registered editors, which never warrant discretionary sanctions. If anything, the article would be better served by permanent semi or ECP than by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer recently deceased; no longer covered by BLP, DS or otherwise. In any case, agreed: Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael Brown may not be recently deceased but Darren Wilson, who killed Brown and who is discussed extensively in the article, is alive, as are other people mentioned in that article whose actions were controversial. That being said, I would not object to shifting to semi-protection if there is little disruption of this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see that was done while I was researching and writing my comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP DS is usual assigned to the article subject, which is not Darren Wilson (police officer). Anyway. I removed the BLP DS. I'm not sure it is of any use anymore, regardless of these policy hypotheticals. El_C 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's not a biography so there was never any living nor recently deceased person as an article subject. In other words, as neither Michael Brown nor Darren Wilson were the articles subjects, by that token BLP DS was never justified. However I'd suggest that since the subject was the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson it was a fair call to apply BLP DS. After all to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." And in fact for all the nonsense going around at the time of the shooting, BLP concerns were always going to arise more for Darren Wilson than for Michael Brown. That said, many years after the investigations, I agree that there's no point keeping the DS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Death of X means X is the subject, even if it isn't a purely a biographical article. But perhaps you're right... I'm really not sure. El_C 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions don't count matters of race, do they? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on which race, and which AC/DS sanction one is looking to enforce. For example, WP:ARBANEG is specifically about race. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions could also affect matter of race in BLPs as well. If someone keeps modifying claims of the race of living persons in contradiction of RS, it IMO (bearing in mind I'm not an admin so never have to make such judgments) may be reasonable to give them a topic ban or something under the DS process where the awareness etc criteria are met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

    Administrator changes

    added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
    removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

    CheckUser changes

    removed SQL

    Guideline and policy news

    Arbitration

    • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

    Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Wikipedia is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot [8]. Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [9] says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per [10]. How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "[11]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

    I think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

    SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.
    • Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Wikipedia is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? Atsme Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Wikipedia. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans [12].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi [Barbaria"], the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.
      Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?
      Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Wikipedia. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Wikipedia, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
      Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra
      I have literally used that word once on Wikipedia and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Wikipedia should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Wikipedia should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​[reply]
    • Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen.[13] I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Wikipedia. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia.[14] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Wikipedia and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Wikipedia. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH21talk 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Censoring

    I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace.com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now he is edit warring about it.[22] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN appeal

    Back in December, I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. Over the past six months, I have abided (mostly, with explanations below) by my ban, strived to avoid conflict, and taken steps to avoid the types of incidents that led to the ban. Below is a brief recap of my past half year of activity.

    I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project and have used this time to partially rectify it. Of the nearly 2,500 edits I’ve made since then, many--if not most--of them have been to further the goals of Women in Red. I’ve made 22 women blue since then, or almost one new article a week on average.

    I’ve slipped up twice. The first came from a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After Cullen328 pointed it out to me, I reread the ban more closely, apologized, and have abided by it since. The second time was when I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. A few hours later, I remembered the ban and self-reverted it.

    I’ve also taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban. During the TBAN discussion, it became clear that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and especially WP:ABOUTSELF than the community at large. On the three (1, 2, and 3) occasions since the ban when a source I used was challenged, I immediately took it to WP:RSN.

    When disputes arise, I’ve taken pains to de-escalate the situation and to bring in outside voices. For example, when a dispute arose at Catholic Church and homosexuality with Rosclese (with whom I have clashed numerous times over the years) in February, I left the article alone for three months, even though I thought she was wrong. More recently, when a new dispute arose with her at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, I not only disengaged from the dispute, I took a week off from editing to reflect. I had been working through the article with another user, and we sometimes disagreed. Through the normal give and take, the article got better. It can be difficult to do this with Roscelese, however, and so when she arrived at the article I notified the appropriate Wikiprojects and removed myself.

    When a dispute arose with JZG (pinged as a courtesy, even though he does not wish to interact with me) at Stop the Church, I took the issue to ANI. That conversation dried up without a real resolution, and I was left unsure about what I should have done better. In an effort to avoid similar situations, I then turned to Bagumba and Steve Quinn, who were familiar with the particulars, and asked them directly how I could improve my editing in situations like these. I can't remember any other disputes worth mentioning here.

    I am now going to ping everyone who was involved in the original discussion so that they can weigh in here, if they like. @Avatar317, Alexbrn, Serial Number 54129, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, DGG, Nil Einne, Wekeepwhatwekill, Michepman, Darth Mike, Elizium23, TimothyBlue, Isaidnoway, SPECIFICO, Giants2008, Drmies, Sethie, and Literaturegeek: A few of them said they would support a TBAN in order to give the Knights article time to improve and stabilize, which I believe it has. Since I typically don’t spend much time on noticeboards, I was unfamiliar with protocol in situations like these. I made a partial appeal a few days later, asking to be allowed to edit on talk pages. That was denied, but I want to make sure CaptainEek and Jayron32 have a chance to comment as well, should they care to do so, since they took the time to respond to my previous appeal.

    Thank you all for your consideration. I'm not perfect, and I am certain I will mess up again, but I'll try to make new mistakes the next time around. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't mind this being lifted--but there were some really serious issues, esp. in regards to sourcing. Obviously SOT will be closely watched if they get back into this territory. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Slugger O'Toole: For the ANI you opened reporting JzG, it was just a month ago, and I closed it w/ no action as I found both of you to have been edit warring, but it had gone stale. How can you assure the community that it's not too soon to lift this unrelated topic ban? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Bagumba, I think that incident is an example of why the community should. I only edited the main article after JZG had gone silent on talk for several days. I took his silence to indicate that he agreed with me. I think this happened twice. After the second time I realized that it wasn't working and, rather than continue to edit war, decided I needed outside help. That's when I went to ANI. As mentioned in my initial appeal, after you closed the discussion I was still unsure what I should have done better, and that's why I went to your talk page (and Steve's) to seek further clarification. I don't want to try and deflect the attention from myself, but think it is worth pointing out here that it was JZG who was making the contested effort, not me, and thus should have been him who was trying to seek consensus. I did so anyway rather than edit war. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I was looking for you to say that you were having a dispute, but you realize now that it was wrong to have reported the other party for edit warring, when you were a culprit as well. It's not to say you didn't know to follow WP:DR now. I'm neutral on lifting the TBAN at this time. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of dependant on the answer to Baguma's question, but tending towards a "Support per Drmies". ——Serial # 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has demonstrated no understanding of NPOV and Wikipedia sourcing policy. It was not limited to Knights of Columbus. The same issues are evident in SO'T's editing at Harvard Extension School. This user seems to edit articles that are related to his real-life experience or loyalties but these are exavctly the ones he should not be editing. I see no reason to believe SO'T is willing or able to set aside such fundamental and apparently deep-seated deviations from Wikipedia editing policies. Also, without revealing evidence here, for what it's worth, I believe it's likely he socked at least once in violation of his TBAN. If so, he later lied about that at ANI. SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @SPECIFICO: Per WP:NPA: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. May I suggest that you either file at WP:SPI and leave notification here, or retract the statement? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It was my intention to acknowledge that I was stating my personal belief without the evidence that would be required for a formal complaint. Are you suggesting or ordering me, under threat of Admin action? If you are instructing me as an Admin to strike, I will do so. I can email you why I did not and will not make an SPI complaint. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SPECIFICO, I can't change what I've done in the past. I can only try to improve going forward. For what it's worth, when you tried to propose a new restriction on my editing a few weeks ago, a propsal closed per WP:SNOW, you used the Harvard Extension School as an example then, too. The problem is that what you cited as a prime example of my problematic behavior happened there seven years ago. I have offered on multiple occasions, both in that ANI discussion and twice on the talk page there that I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. You haven't responded to any of those requests. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. That sounds like more of the same behavior that got you banned. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting the ban. Per WP:ROPE, and the reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the above statement, I have no problem lifting the formal ban. I do wish to remind Slugger that memories last longer than bans, and that it is likely the amount of patience given for similar behaviors is likely to be much smaller going forward. --Jayron32 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter

    Discussion has moved to the Village pump. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (I know this probably should go somewhere else but this probably gets the most eyeballs the fastest)

    We should black out the site in support of Black Lives Matter. We've done it before. We can do it again. It simply requires moral courage to do the right thing.--Jorm (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We are a force for good. We should do good things. We have, at our disposal, the largest information platform in the world. We should use it.
    There is an idea that we are "neutral." We are not. The simple idea of "free knowledge" is, in and of itself, the most radically progressive idea that has ever existed in the minds of humankind. We are not neutral. We will never be. We are always, forever, a force of progress and progress is only ever good'.
     We should act like it. We should do good things.
    I am not the smartest person in the world so I don't have all the ideas. We can black out the site in solidarity with the lives lost over time to police brutality. We can use our vast money collection engine to pay bail or medical expenses for those injured by the police state. We can use our money to buy legal advice. We can provide direct, powerful fact-checking for free to millions of people.
    Let's do some good.

    --Jorm (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jorm: I think WP:VPP might be a better place to request/discuss this.
    (i'll copy this there in a second)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Note Could we have an uninvolved admin check over there and assess whether there is a case for a WP:SNOW close? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't need an uninvolved. It's snowed. It can close. It's fine; I won't bark.--Jorm (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Economist: Straight but Narrow
    2. ^ Clear Quran: Surah 5:90
    3. ^ Clear Quran: Surah 6:145
    4. ^ Clear Quran: Surah 11:78
    5. ^ Clear Quran: Surah 45:11
    6. ^ Religion of Peace: Islam and Homosexuality
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=960357251"