Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
Incidents (archives, search)
1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079
1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436
437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
Other links

IP editing prohibited?[edit]

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

Is IP editing prohibited in WP? If not pls. check Dasun Shanaka. My edit was reverted by user:wgullyn. (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You changed "right-handed" to "right-han*ded" and added a typo in the lead section. Please review your edits before submitting them. Wgullyn (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
IP editing is not prohibited, but your edits introduced typos and were properly reverted. This is not an issue that is pertinent to this board, so I'm closing this thread. --Kinu t/c 03:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 5 6 157 103 271
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 0 15 11 26
AfD 0 0 0 28 28

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (18 out of 3578 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Sa'ad ad-Din II 2022-01-24 01:39 2022-04-24 01:39 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
Haqq ad-Din II 2022-01-24 01:37 2022-04-24 01:37 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
Hiraab Imamate 2022-01-24 01:33 2022-02-24 01:33 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
West Elm Caleb 2022-01-23 22:00 indefinite edit per talk Valereee
Template:Facepalm 2022-01-23 17:59 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2548 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Hossein Derakhshan 2022-01-23 17:07 indefinite edit,move Article consists predominantly of COI contributions Anachronist
1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War 2022-01-23 06:44 2022-04-23 06:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry: Increasing protection level due to sock puppetry Spencer
Ehraz Ahmed 2022-01-23 02:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Domino's Pizza 2022-01-23 02:03 2022-01-26 02:03 move Persistent disruptive editing Liz
Betty White 2022-01-23 00:08 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Widr
Salvatore Rich 2022-01-22 20:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7
Mahabharat (1988 TV series) 2022-01-22 16:17 2022-03-01 19:48 edit Persistent sock puppetry MelanieN
Sabareesan V 2022-01-21 22:24 2022-07-21 22:24 create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar
Salvatore rich 2022-01-21 20:35 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names by sockpuppets Liz
Kabza 2022-01-20 22:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
NSO Group 2022-01-20 12:48 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page El C
Adolf Hitler Uunona 2022-01-20 04:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles 2022-01-20 04:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz

User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) - repeat my request for a topic ban[edit]

Coldstreamer20 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which WP guidelines specifically instruct us *not* to use.

In accordance with previous concerns raised about Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, I advised him on his new Coldstreamer20 talkpage (User talk:Coldstreamer20#Smaller unit Templates) on 4 January, several days ago, that he should not use the 1991 Master Order of Battle, in view of longstanding WP:CIR - Competence Is Required - concerns.

Now I find it utilized and added at 51st Infantry Brigade and Headquarters Scotland, on 8 January, after my warning. This breaches at least two sub-clauses of WP:PRIMARY, those being:

  • "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.

Concerns by others regarding use of dubious sources have also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Peer review? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assistance requested; as well as copy-paste moves at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Field Army (United Kingdom). I also raised a confusion of units separated by twenty years being conflated at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Leave United Kingdom Land Forces alone unless you want a block request, please, after misuse of a source (Colin Mackie) which is good on officers' names but *not* titles of posts, and have now reached the point where I believe a topic ban, if not a block, is desirable in the interest of avoiding future extra clean up work.

I was advised after the last post at WP:AN that I could seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.

In accordance with the last parts of the archived Archive 334 proposal for a topic ban, and continuing concerns about this user's adherence to referencing, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and other CIR issues I would like to propose/request a sitewide topic ban for Coldstreamer20 ex J-Man11 from any military topics after 1850. Such a restriction would allow this user to gain more experience at building and referencing articles properly using secondary sources only. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support TBAN from all Milhist articles Coldstreamer20/J-Man11's long-standing propensity to use online sources leads them into this quandary. Instead of slowing down and borrowing books from libraries to properly source the articles they work on from reliable secondary sources, they work very fast and seek the most accessible sources of information, despite some of them being unreliable SPS. The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a Ministry of Defence printout using military abbreviations and multi-alphanumeric codes obtained via FOI, and even someone like me that actually served with the British Army around that time has to interpret what it says using my existing knowledge. The requirement for the use of PRIMARY sources is that you cannot analyse or interpret the source, and it is clear that Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 is doing that, and inaccurately. It is therefore not an acceptable use of a PRIMARY source. After so many instances of Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 using unreliable online sources for military history articles, I agree with the CIR issue and actually think an indefinite TBAN from all military-related articles is warranted. The clean-up and monitoring work involved is just too much to expect other editors to do, and Buckshot06 has done the bulk of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Would a more focused tban that excludes coldstreamer from citing any: 1) Websites, 2) self-published sources, 3) primary sources on milhist related articles work? I'd certainly agree that they do not seem like a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Buidhe I do not believe so. The amount of fast sloppy work, not demonstrating any underlying understanding of how forces fitted together, especially for the British Army, after 1900 makes me believe that a topic ban is required. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Coldstreamer20 would benefited from gaining access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library ages ago, based on the accusations levelled here. I am somewhat surprised nobody has pointed them to that. Peacemaker67's repeated insistence on offline sources is mistaken as it's presenting a false dichotomy that the "quick and easy way" is not the right way. It is quick and easy to find actual secondary sources if one has access to online databases and I would highly recommend that regardless of what happens here, Coldstreamer20 should endeavour to gain access to an online research database. It would seem that TWL checks if an editor has an active block and not a "ban" per se unless it's enforced by a block. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not a new problem, Chess. My "repeated insistence on offline sources", is nothing of the sort. Many books, journal articles, newspapers etc are available online, and I am not suggesting they can't use those, as long as they are reliable. But instead they use SPS fanboi sites that are clearly unreliable. My suggestion about the library is just one way of obtaining access to reliable sources, as is TWL. If Coldstreamer20 does not learn what a reliable source is, they will never be able to utilise online sources in a way that is acceptable on WP. And they have been given plenty of rope already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Chess, The Wikipedia Library does not include the kind of extremely detailed data points (individual company locations, exact command chains etc) that Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 is trying to write about. The information is usually only reliably available from official sources or through specialist publications with years of delay. Instead this user has repeatedly tried to patch together WP:SYNTH listings for 2019, 2020, or even now 2021. This user does not appear to be able to interpret what a reliable source is, and does not appear to have an underlying understanding of how for example the British Army has fitted together since 1945 (eg problems distinguishing United Kingdom Land Forces, 1972-1995, from HQ Land Forces, which only appeared in the 21st century, c2012). This is why I have been forced to make this TB request. I'm tired, very tired, of running around after her/him to clean up. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a participant in the two previous AN threads. (The second is further down on Archive 334, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11.) Both were unanimous, but not everyone agreed on the precise scope, and the thread went stale and were archived without action. I'll stick with the post-1850 cutoff from the second proposal, unless someone can demonstrate evidence of disruption on a pre-1850 or timeless military topic, or explain why such behavior is likely to occur. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou LaundryPizza03 I was going half bananas trying to find the second thread. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Tban from military history articles Seems like IDHT problems. To note, there's probably nothing easy about finding the right sources for these kinds of specialisized subjects. However, if you cannot find reliable sources for a topic, that does not make it acceptable to use unreliable sources. The proper response is to move on and edit something else. Clearly this user needs official nudging in that direction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN from all Milhist articles I don't understand how a user who claims to have a Master's Degree in History is struggling to properly utilize reliable sources after repeated warnings from others.--Catlemur (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (non-admin) I have found Coldstreamer20's editing to be good faith disruptive and that Coldstreamer20 fails to rectify edits when advised of mistakes or omissions. Example for WP:UNSOURCED and WP:COPYVIO - advised in August 2021 for edit, no action with acknowledgement that "I DID get a ping and notification", in January 2022 I removed UNSOURCED, I gave Coldstreamer20 another opportunity on their Talkpage to address COPYVIO, Coldstreamer20 has failed to act again, afterwards Coldstreamer20 edited the article with edit summary "(Some changes, also millions of infobox cats removed and image added"), COPYVIO still on the article. Examples for WP:DISRUPTIVE: WP:MOVE edit with mistake, advised and no action (I had to revert); creating essentially a duplicate template that had mistakes and that displays a lack of understanding of military terms; misrepresenting source edit (corrected url) that has been removed; lack of understanding of military ranks edit, reverted by another editor, reverted by Coldstreamer20 and finally I removed.--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


For anyone concerned about this report, the user was blocked a few days ago and and perhaps the current unblock request there should be addressed before any action is taken here. (jmho) - wolf 06:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal[edit]

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

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on a subject matter concerning "Erica Nlewedim". The TBAN was implemented on 30 June 2021 as a result of my inability to edit around the subject neutrally because I'm a big fan of hers. Since then, I have refrained from editing articles covering this subject and also refrained from resubmitting the draft at AfC.
I have been contributing actively at AFC and AFD especially in the Nigerian space because that’s an area I understand. I have also been doing article creation, deorphaning articles and welcoming new users. I have not had any warnings or come under fire for any untoward behaviour. I have earned barnstars for my AfC work and content work. The editor who caused me stress apologized for being overly critical of my work and praised me for my ability to edit in a collaborative manner.
Also, I would like to emphasise that I understand the rationale behind the TBAN and have no interest in resubmitting the draft at AfC any further. I just want to be able to edit without being worried about sanctions. Thank you.
Princess of Ara 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm always for lifting tbans if possible. Would you be willing to adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on all things related to Erica Nlewedim for a period of 12 months if the tban was lifted? It would automatically expire, you wouldn't have to ask for it to be lifted. This means that you could edit things related, but you couldn't revert more than once per 24 hour period. The 1RR would only apply to Erica Nlewedim topics and edits, nothing else. I haven't looked at your history yet, but this is common idea I like to throw out early. Since it has only been 6 months or so since the tban was instituted, a little extra caution on our part is warranted. Dennis Brown - 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Dennis Brown, I'll be willing to take the restriction so far it gets my username off the editing restrictions list.
Princess of Ara 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It would remain for one year, as 1RR, but automatically be lifted afterwards. But I'm not the only one here, it's just one idea. Dennis Brown - 15:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not @Dennis Brown, but believe a 1RR would still have you listed. Can you clarify why exactly you want the restriction removed? Is it just so you're not on a list? Star Mississippi 15:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Affirmative @Star Mississippi, My username on the list really discourages me so I want my username removed from that list. What led to the ban did not involve edit warring so if the 1RR involves remaining on the list, I'm promising not to get into trouble surrounding that subject. Princess of Ara 15:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
My personal opinion, should the topic ban be lifted but 1RR be implemented, is for you to pretend it the topic ban exists. Don't edit in the area, that way you won't have to worry about sanctions. Courtesy @Celestina007: as they don't appear to have been notified. Star Mississippi 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
But @Star Mississippi @Dennis Brown, what will be the essence of 1RR when there was no edit warring prior? Princess of Ara 15:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The justification is to prevent diving in too deeply into an area where you've already had enough problems that it warranted a tban. A tban is a more severe thing than a 3rr block, after all. It doesn't limit how much you can add to that topic, but it limits how much you can remove other's work, a much milder restriction than a tban. It is not required to have 3RR violations to get a 1RR restriction in a topic, it is only necessary to demonstrate that there has been a problem with that topic, and the tban indicates such. Since you are asking for the tban to be lifted so soon after it was placed, it is compromise, one I suggest you accept gracefully if a consensus supports it. Dennis Brown - 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright. Anything to get my name off that list. Thank you. Princess of Ara 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support the lifting of the TBAN. The 1RR restriction seems like a good idea, though I'm not too sure if it needs to be as long as a year. Few months would be enough. — Golden call me maybe? 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support lifting with 1RR restriction of a duration of 0 to 12 months. The restriction isn't a deal breaker, but I think a good idea. Dennis Brown - 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Lifting of TBAN with 1RR for at most 6 months(or maybe less) since their TBan is already more than 6 months. I believe Princess of Ara have learnt from the past and will never go near the aforementioned draft just like they have abstained before now. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the TBAN, preferably without the 1RR restriction at all, but with it if that is the only way for this proposal to pass. I am more concerned by the interactions between Princess of Ara and Celestina007. Despite being banned from asked not to comment at Princess of Ara's talk page, for instance, Celestina007 filed a frivolous ANI report against Princess of Ara a couple of weeks ago, and the report strikes me as extreme rudeness with only a thin veil of politeness. Despite this, Princess of Ara responded politely at ANI, and did not escalate the situation, though I am not a fan of the edit summary "Don't archive hysterics". I'm afraid an interaction ban (IBAN) would be logged as well, possibly causing distress to Princess of Ara, but perhaps we are not yet at the point where it is needed. I would say to Celestina007: here, you have been reminded that civility and NPA apply even to editors you are accusing of UPE. Your behaviour has not been the correct way to act; even if everything you have claimed is true and needs to be recorded, the tone of your reports makes it look like grudge-bearing and hounding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Slight rewording per below.Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The consensus in that ANI discussion was very clear, that the community made it very well known that Celestina007 needed to pull their head in and quickly. I haven't been keeping track of the situation, but if that hasn't happened to an extent that we're happy with, I would absolutely support a wider community discussion around whether further action is required (either now, or in the future if it persists after your direct remarks to Celestina007 above). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
      Bilorv and Daniel, just 24 hours after I defended Princess of Ara on this Celestina007's time wasting ANI report. As a revenge, Celestina007 accused me of COI without evidence [1], and she also created this delete discussion that ended in keep. And before the above, she has opened an SPI with me as the suspected socks few days after an AN discussion. Lastly, she also posted this personal attack [2] against me and Princess of Ara. I don't know if all these is right? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — First off @Bilorv, please correct yourself I wasn’t banned from her TP, she asked me to not post anymore on her TP which I obliged, following the ANI. Furthermore please do not cast aspersions of hounding, because up until that ANI, i initiated a week ago, I hadn’t interacted with them, so where is the hounding? The very ANI you are referencing was closed on 26th of July 2021 (from that moment up until now, i have matured immensely), I’m not without flaws and I am far from perfect but I make conscious efforts and strive to be better, Please do retract your aspersions of me hounding. In-fact see here, where i expressly state that I certainly didn’t handle matters appropriately in the past and that I wanted to mend relationships, although they didn’t reply, I totally know they mean well. Myself and Princess of Ara definitely did disagree on several things but moving forward I am making conscious efforts to handle things better. So yes, I certainly support this, coincidentally i had been trying to reach them in order for them to make this very appeal unfortunately as she asked me not to come to her TP thus I was constantly at an impasse, having to deal with other aspects of the project predominantly NPP & Teahouse hosting, I intended to e-mail them at some point but it seemed like a horrible idea, since they didn’t even want me on their TP. @Daniel, I stated in that very ANI that I’d handle things in the collaborative project with less confrontation which I believe to a good extent I have tried to abide by my own promise, please i support that the TBAN be lifted. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I did not mean "ban" in the sense of "community ban", but in the informal sense you described. I've changed my wording accordingly as I can see the confusion. The ANI report is what resembles hounding. I really cannot see why the AFD alone would not suffice as the action to take. However, I happened to see the ANI report within a minute of looking, so if it really is the case that you have not interacted with Princess of Ara since July 2021 other than that report then I may have got a mistaken impression of the scope of the issue. I would still encourage you to take this on as feedback (as you say you did after the July 2021 ANI thread). — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Bilorv, all is well, thank you for making the adjustment, all is well Bilorv, I never miss, nor take for granted any opportunity to learn as I stated in the ANI in July 2021, i see every mistake I make as an opportunity to learn, i do not take for granted any feedback from a community that has trusted me. It took a number of sysops to tell me to be less confrontational and still carry out my duties when dealing with potential article spamming, of which I have, I haven’t been perfect Bilorv but my goal (which ought to be the goal of us all) is to be better than the person/people we were yesterday. I’m still largely accurate when dealing with possible unethical practices and have nabbed several unethical editing and multiple possible sock rings with next to no confrontation, with the help of Timtrent, Dan ardnt, DGG, and a host of co-editors. To the best of my ability I have abided by the promise I made to myself and the community of approaching possible unethical practices with little to no confrontation. Once again thank you for the adjustment you made. Please I believe Princess of Ara has potential to do good and I honestly would want to work with them moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Please I’m currently heavily multi tasking and shuffling between co creating a new article with another editor, new page reviewing and Teahouse duties. Please if there are specific questions directed at me please I would appreciate the {{ping}} function be optimized as I may not be manually checking here for new comments due to how busy I am right now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support conditional removal of topic ban and replacement with 1RR for 12 months We seem to have become distracted with other matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these it is a shame to dilute this discussion with those other matters. The appellant deserves clarity im their appeal discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with a 6-month 1RR restriction - the reasons for removing are fair, and there is some basis for the 1RR, but 12 months seems overly long. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support A trusted editor with a demonstrable track record. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any chance this thread can get closed? Princess of Ara 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    The result here seems obvious but I would wait two more days so that it runs a full week. This makes the result stronger, especially if we collect a few more opinions. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Another opinion wanted? Sure, i support with a six month restriction of 1RR just for safety; time to close this ~ it's clear. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Lifting the topic ban with a 1 year 1RR sounds good to me. SQLQuery Me! 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) It has been over a week since Jehochman said we should wait two more days Face-wink.svg. FWIW I support lifting the topic ban. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swear comments on my talk page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been resolved. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This 2409:4060:2014:13C2:0:0:1D8F:38B0 ip, left some swear comments on my talk page. See this, and this. He has even vandalized past 4 warnings, and I have reported him to WP:AIV. Just though to keep the notice here, as he also harrased me. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. You are of course always welcome to remove garbage like that from your own talk page; no need to let it sit there. As a random question, why is your talk page flagging as a dab? Primefac (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, what is DAB? Can you please tell me properly? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Itcouldbepossible: It is a disambiguation page. Yoshi24517Chat Online 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why the my talk page is a disambiguation page. Can anyone solve it? Why should it be a disambiguation page? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There was a category that wasn't properly linked, but it looks like it's been sorted now. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I corrected that erroneous attempt to link a category, but I can't see why the user talk page had been believed to be a dab page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph@Primefac I understand it now. Once an IP user (long time abuse report and sockpuppet user), was asking me to link to categories. I did not quite understand all that he was telling me, but he guided me, and I finally managed to do all that he wanted. It was later that I came to know that he was a banned user.
While he was guiding me, he forgot to use ":" before writing [[Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories]], and so my talk page got categorized as an disambiguation page. I hope things get clear now. And lots of thanks to you David, for correcting the error. You know what, I find that many editors are 'really' there to help others, and not just busy with their own work. If it would not have been you, then I could not have understood what the problem was. Thanks again. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not have regarded Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories as implying that your user talk page was a dab page, but perhaps others interpreted in differently. I noticed also that your user talk page is sitting in Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, but again this seems to be the result of one of your experiments. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph Oh my god! How should I remove it then? Why did it end up there? I did not perform any experiments. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes you did! In this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph I still don't understand. I put {{subst:uw-username}} between the nowiki template. Then why did it create problems? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're obviously not reading very carefully. Just above the line which starts: "PS. This is not a real warning. ...", you have placed Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph Ok, now I understand. The last time, I clicked on the old diff that you had given me, but it is clear to me now. But what can be done now? How can I remove my name from that category? I don't want to get into trouble. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the inappropriate category in this edit, in accordance with the instructions in the comment preceding it. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It's one of the categories that triggers a link highlighting change in User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac Can you be a little clear? What does that linkclassifier.css do? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It, well, classifies links, by changing the wikilink colours of certain types of pages. The documentation tells more and will waste less space than me typing it all out here. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
So, by the look of it, the confusion arose from the fact that the defaults show dab pages in the same colour as soft-redirect-cats. The OP's user talk page was in the latter category, but Primefac interpreted it as being in the former. Problem solved, I think. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph@Primefac Yes, I have now got the facts. Thanks for the clarification. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for lifting of community block of Commander Waterford[edit]

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

We received the following in UTRS from CommanderWaterford:

"First of all Happy New Year to Everyone. Hope you are all doing good and healthy. I previously raised an Appeal via UTRS but response from it went unfortunately to spam so I did not take notice of it. I had been banned by Community Decision more than half a year ago, at the end of may. I now would like to ask kindly for an unblock by WP:SO and a New Beginning. In 2021 I translated dozens of articles and instead of learning and being thankful for being noticed about it I got angry and upset. I admit that I definitely made several mistakes not only but mainly while translating articles by not tagging them correctly. By making several hundred edits every single day - thousands a week, 6-8 hours entirely every day - I surely had been involved by far too much and at this time I took criticism too often as a personal attack since my main task - or let us be honest: meaning of life at this time - was to edit and improve Wikipedia. Since my ban you may perhaps has noticed that I still have been from time to time active on the Spanish version and several other Wiki projects. I would be okay for removing all of my previous User-Rights since I am only planning to edit from time to time and not even by far that much and in the areas as last year. Thank you in advance for considering my appeal, stay safe. Best, CommanderWaterford"

Posting this for the community to review, the discussion that lead to the block is here: [3] RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note that the link that RickinBaltimore has provided was the initial close of that discussion. The discussion was subsequently re-opened, and a bit more was said. See this additional section. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading through that discussion, several concerns were raised about copyright violations in work they had written. This unblock request does not appear to mention that issue, which seems quite a crucial one regarding editing here. CMD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • RickinBaltimore - I believe that it's customary for a banned user to have talk page access restored for the period of a discussion such as this in order to allow them to respond to queries. I will not take any administrative action here - after I unblocked them the first time around, I acted as a sort of mentor/sounding board for them off-wiki, and so would consider myself too involved to make further use of the tools with regards to their account. Would you consider whether or not talk page access restoration would be appropriate in this case? Girth Summit (blether) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll do that right now, sure with a note that the talk page is to be used solely for responding to queries that may arise here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) And that is now done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Following a request, I opened a CCI on CW at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/CommanderWaterford. The issues went beyond not attributing translations and also included copying text from sources. A particularly bad case can be seen at the history of Port of Arrecife, where CW adds a copyvio, some of the copyvio is removed by the article's creator, CW reverts the user, claiming "Please do not remove without seeking consesus, content is included in references, no copyvio at all and if it will be treated in a different way". The copyvio is finally completely removed a few weeks later by Diannaa. Had I seen this when it happened, I would have indefinitely blocked CW. There are several other problematic behaviors not related to copyright violations highlighted in that discussion- CW often had aggressive responses when his poor behavior was pointed out, such as this, this, and this. Further aggressive responses can be seen in the ANI discussion and the autopatrol revoke leading up to his ban. But most importantly to me, there is the indefinite July 2020 block by TonyBallioni for "concerns about competence and unwillingness to engage with others"- the same issues that resulted in CW's May 2021 ban. There is also this discussion about CW's admitted previous account (which he has never disclosed) where he claims TonyBallioni is "stalking" him, simply because Tony was being careful with giving permissions to a clean-but-not-really-start. Unblocking at this point may very well just re start the block-unblock cycle CW is in. I am sympathetic toward CW; I do not think the ban discussion was very fair, it felt like a setup with far too much offsite coordination. I feel like CCI was used inappropriately as a weapon in that discussion, which I am very unhappy with. I will not be currently opposing this unblock request, but I will not be supporting it either, as the plethora of concerns with CW's editing are not really addressed in it. If I were to support, there would need to be some engagement and clarification from CW on what he would do differently. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This appeal is clearly inadequate as the ANI thread brought up a number of issues which have not been addressed sufficiently, mainly surrounding CW's interactions with other editors and inability to take criticism. I can't see what CW has said he would do differently, other than edit less. I suspect there is a maturity issue, for which just 8 months away may not be long enough to resolve.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For transparency sake, I’m quite fond of CW, and would support that their block be lifted as they showed a sincere commitment to better the collaborative project, although overzealous at times, having said, I do also note that Pawnkingthree does make a rather solid point. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be pointed out that this is in fact CW's 2nd indefinite block, not their first, they've already had another chance. As a result the text above isn't going to sway anyone. They will need to make a much better case and request to get anyone to take it seriously in any manner, list all all the issues that people have raised in the past and address how they'll do better on them, along with what restrictions they'll willingly place upon themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I typically don't believe in third chances. An unblock from an indef means that the community has decided the potential benefits from unblocking outweigh the known risks of disruption. A reblock after an unblock such as this means that we were wrong when we took that chance the first time. Let's not be wrong twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I understand that finding oneself in financial ruin can take a toll on one's mental health, and it's not out of the ordinary for stress to facilitate aggression and irritability. I'm very saddened to read CW's admission on his talk page about his life being turned upside down because of the pandemic, and I wish him a healthy road to recovery. These unfortunate circumstances do not absolve the somewhat extended history of hostile interaction with other editors and unwillingness to take criticism, but it seems to me that reflecting on past mistakes and recognizing one's own faults should count for something, especially in such trying times. That being said, I don't see this unblock request going anywhere unless CW elaborates on his other wrongdoings, namely persistent copyvio, and how they would do better on them in the future. nearlyevil665 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking I am not an admin, and I have a fondness for CW. While I habve not always found our interactions to be cuddly and sweet I have found them as an edityor to be diligent and normally responsive to criticism. I am saddened that they worked hard to achieve this block. It was obvious from their reaction that they were highly stressed and reacted poorly. They have now stated their reasons. I understand TonyBallioni's thoughts on third chances, and would usually concur. The special circumstances of the pandemic and its effect on us all affects that, and I would offer CW that third chance. I keep wondering what conditions one might attach to that, but find that I feel none should be required. I think we have seen a foolish set of aberrations, and I believe that sufficient contrition is shown. THey have provided a fine example to us all of what not to do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to CW's real-world concerns and am very sorry to hear about them, and I hope beyond hoping that they really were the sole explanation for some of the frankly awful things that happened here. I can't, however, do anything but oppose this. Very similar promises were made in the leadup to the un-indef, which resulted in even worse semi-automated tool misuse and civility issues than the pre-indef behaviour. (Also, to point at some terminology, CW isn't blocked as several of the responses are saying but rather community banned.) I'd like to believe as Timtrent suggests that this is aberrant behaviour of a productive editor, but I don't see that in the persistent pattern of behaviour between both the edits predating the indef, and the edits after the indef's lifting but before the ban. I also have concerns about offwiki behaviour that are difficult due to the current setup of our outing policies to discuss onwiki but leave me personally concerned about being harrassed by CW if he's unbanned. I agree maturity might be a concern here and I genuinely wish CW well in life, regardless of where it takes him. Vaticidalprophet 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Vaticidalprophet I apologise for my misuse of terminology (ban/block). I took my cue from the section heading, and have obviously misinterpreted. I take your points on board. I am only able to comment on my personal experience, so I hope your concerns are misplaced, but I respect your feelings on the matter. I do not disagree about the circumstances leading to the sanction. I have rarely seen such determination to achieve a sanction. I am still standing by my opinion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm very saddened though not fully surprised to hear CommanderWaterford's unfortunate real life situation. The pandemic has been a horrible, horrible time for many of us. I hope that they are doing better, and that this message is an indication of that. To unblock, however, it is not a matter of whether we are going to be fair or unfair to an individual, but whether the unblock will be a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia. I have not seen CW address the behaviour referenced by Vaticidalprophet above, which I was about to mention myself. Some of it was onwiki but I can attest to off-wiki issues too. I do want them back on Wikipedia one day, but this unbanning request may not be the one. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The original appeal posted here fails to address much of the problematic behavior that CW was twice indeffed for. The response he posted on his talk page today addresses more, but I don't find it convincing, as it mostly just blames the pandemic for everything. He says he will accept any unblock restrictions placed on him, but when he was unblocked in January 2021 he agreed to not use high-speed editing tools and to accept constructive criticism. By late March he was breaking this promise by using Huggle for high-speed reverts; these were pointed out by others as being problematic in and of themselves. He also failed to uphold his commitment to taking advice, responding with hostility and sarcasm to even the softest criticism. Given the history, how we can trust him to hold to any unblock conditions this time around? ♠PMC(talk) 03:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with a caveat, and echo Bilorv's sentiments about the pandemic and CW's RL situation; however, we differ relative to the substance of the appeal. What I see in CW's appeal is recognition of his unacceptable behavior, and acknowledgement of his editing mistakes which not only demonstrates a remarkable change in his attitude, it speaks to the lessons he has learned. We certainly need good reviewers helping out at NPP but another idea just crossed my mind for those editors who may be hesitant to give him another chance. Considering copyvios were a big part of the issue, why not school CW in that very topic? If Moneytrees is receptive to a little mentoring/guidance, or can recommend someone else who is receptive, what would it hurt if we gave CW a 90 day probationary period that limits his activity to helping out at copyright investigations? CW is certainly open-minded and receptive to learning and growing, and has demonstrated good qualities while attending NPP school. A substantial portion of his time as an editor on WP has been productive, so why not AGF one more time? Atsme 💬 📧 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Support with a caveat I second this. Seems like a reasonable compromise. nearlyevil665 06:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Atsme I'd be fine with doing that if CW agreed to it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Moneytrees - as proficient as CW was in NPP, (and he apparently got along fine with most editors as noted in some of the comments here) it wasn't until the COVID moment that drug him down and made him feel unappreciated. Yes, there were the mistakes with copyvio that he admitted to making, but what would it hurt to put him to work under your tutelege where you can help him learn the ins and outs of copyvio? He could learn so much from you, including patience, how to better phrase his frustration, and at the same time be an incredibly productive editor. If for any reason it doesn't work, well...out he goes. Why throw away a potentially productive editor without at least giving it a try? Atsme 💬 📧 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose And in reply to Tony - this wouldnt be a third chance if CW's editing history is looked at as a whole. Supporting at this point is just handing someone a stick to beat you with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. I see no issue with a fresh request in 6 months that addresses the points made above. The two previous cases with CW presented themselves as large timesinks, and as editor time is valuable, I cannot support right now. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I'm sympathetic to the pandemic's effects on CW, the reality is his temperament issues didn't start then and all of us have lived through this without having such conduct issues. I feel that if he's unblocked (again) we'll just ultimately be back here. Further, I see no addressing of the copyvio concerns. Star Mississippi 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would not support an unblock this case, for the same reasons Star Mississippi gives.—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblocking/banning, per Star Mississippi & others, and having reread the orignal ANI discussion.. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I was going to post earlier, but I kept getting edit conflicted. His unban request did not adequately address why the community was upset with him. I see no reason to believe that he has changed enough to not be disruptive in the future. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CounterPunch RFC and extended confirmed[edit]

A user with all of 16 edits, 12 of them on one day in 2020, and none since August 8th of last year, found their way to the RFC on CounterPunch at WP:RSN. The user made a comment referencing Israel Shamir, which a quick look at Talk:Israel Shamir will show to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Many of the comments in the RFC are specifically discussing material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Additionally, AlexEng has reported an attempt at stealth canvassing by a suspected sock of יניב הורון, a banned user largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict topic with his various socks, see here. The last RFC had 6 confirmed socks in it, 5 from Icewhiz and another from NoCal100, both active in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich undid the striking of the comment, claiming that neither the comment nor the RFC is related the ARBPIA topic area, despite the comment specifically discussing a subject that is listed as being in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. The most recent clarification by ArbCom shows that such discussions should be treated as extended-confirmed protected, and given the comment specifically discusses the ARBPIA topic area I find the removal of the strikeout dumbfounding. Can we get a ruling on if EC applies to that discussion? nableezy - 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all the user is probably a sock and his edit will be struck soon but lets assume they are not, their edit is not about the conflict but about holocaust denial that has nothing to do with I/P conflict Shrike (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the diff of the comment at issue: Special:Diff/1065201226. It's in an RFC about whether CounterPunch should be deprecated -- not an RFC that is covered by ARBPIA. The comment doesn't mention Israel/Palestine. It does link to a source that mentions it, but I don't think that 30/500 in ARBPIA means that no non-ECP can even link to a source that mentions I/P without having their comment struck. That's too much attenuation. No doubt that the editor is a sock, and I'm simultaneously !voting in favor of ECPing all of these RSN general-reliability RFCs... but merely linking to a source that mentions I/P in a comment that doesn't mention I/P, in an RFC that isn't about I/P, can't be grounds for striking a non-ECP's !vote. Levivich 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The edit is about Israel Shamir, and Talk:Israel Shamir shows that to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Non extended-confirmed users may not discuss material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area in the WP namespace, full stop. The very idea that an RFC that had its prior run infested with Icewhiz socks is not related is absurd, and having editors obfuscate that relation away is dispiriting. nableezy - 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
But as far as I can tell they did not and Israel Shamir does not only write about the israle/Palestine conflict (and the material posted mentioned neither). In fact, it seemed more related to his work as a notorious holocaust denier.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you see the banner at Talk:Israel Shamir? I have zero interest in discussing the merits of the comment here, this is not the place for that. nableezy - 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that no non-ECP editor can mention Israel Shamir anywhere on Wikipedia, even in a discussion not about ARBPIA, in a comment not about ARBPIA, simply because Shamir's Wikipedia article is tagged with the ARBPIA tag? By your logic, no non-ECP editor can mention Alan Dershowitz. Levivich 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Broadly construed" covers a lot of ground.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Do you not understand what broadly construed means? Do you believe that many of the comments in that RFC do not directly relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Whatever, I dont want to waste anymore time with this type of crap, and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. nableezy - 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you guys completely lost your minds? So you think non-ECP editors cannot mention, anywhere on Wikipedia the following topics: Simon Wiesenthal Center, Religious war, Military occupation, or Alice Walker, all of which are tagged with the ARBPIA tag. That is not what "broadly construed" means. Non-ECP editors can't engage in discussions about the topic; they are not prevented from mentioning anything related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be my take, what it means is those ARTICLES are covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Not even that, in many cases, it's just parts of articles that are covered by it. It's nonsensical to suggest (as some here have) that no non-ECP editor can even mention Media bias, Jewish diaspora, Israeli cuisine (including Israeli wine and Israeli salad), UN Watch, Settler colonialism, Max Blumenthal, Stephen Walt, Richard Goldstone, or Richard Behar, all of which are tagged ARBPIA. There are thousands of articles tagges ARBPIA [4] (I'm not sure who went about tagging all these). It's patently insane to say any article tagged ARBPIA == a topic that no non-ECP can talk about anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
From the Arca "I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual" so let's wait for someone like that who has not "lost their mind" to say. Although I have to say I feel quite sane. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE - Levivich writes (his own words) - No doubt that the editor is a sock [5] so why did Levivich consciously restored (un-striked[6]) (in his view) sock puppet's comment? What is such action called again administrators? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Becouse we struck only after CU confirmed it he will probably do it before RFC ends and that the reason I tagged his comment as SPA till that. Shrike (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The editor's comment was struck becasue that editor is not eligible [7] to comment in that topic area, NOT becase they were declared a sock puppet. Levivich restored their comment and later discloses that they have no doubts that user is a sock puppet. What is such action called again @Shrike? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You knowingly restored a sock puppet's comment (your own words [8]). We have an issue here. Would you mind undoing your action, since you have no doubts the user is a sock-puppet Levivich ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe if you used more bold I might agree with what you're saying but until then I'll follow WP:AGF. Levivich 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment on my writing fashion does not explain your behaviour, neither WP:AGF does. I'm done commenting here and will leave it for the administrative team to evaluate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
wp:spi then look into it and ban them if they are. But an accusation is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
NOTE - it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{spa}}, and then before the discussion is closed a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of sockpuppet investigation can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. It may also be useful to let the person closing the discussion decide whether the EC restriction should apply, rather than the involved editors debating this issue endlessly. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Seems fair, as long as it is Arbcom closing it after they decoide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
We just got that clarification here. What is needed now is editors not disrupting an RFC that was already subject to rampant socking in its past iteration by making comments like it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here when discussing even an editor they call an obvious sock. I am asking for administrators to determine if an editor may make comments about Israel Shamir in an RFC on deprecating a source in a discussion that has several explicit references to a restricted topic area, in light of the fact that two ARBPIA sockmasters voted 6 times in the last RFC, and that another ARBPIA sockmaster has engaged in stealth canvassing at both the last RFC and the current one. nableezy - 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Very good. The key point seems to be It is of course a case-by-case decision, but I would suggest the following general rule: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. (L235). It seems that the discussion should be flagged as "EC restriction is potentially in effect here. A closing or patrolling administrator should make a determination whether an EC restriction is in effect based on ArbCom's guidance." Whether the EC comes into play could depend upon the course of the discussion. I am not sure whether this question can be judged in advance, or if it is better to wait for the discussion to play out, see what participants say, and then decide. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
My question is can an editor specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. I find that to be a clear question with an easy answer, and does not need to be judged in advance as it has already happened. This is a fairly clear question and administrators can say no if they feel that way, but I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. The question at the start of this section is clear, and I hope an admin will evaluate it before this devolves further. nableezy - 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No, the editor did not specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. In an RFC about CounterPunch, they linked to an article in CounterPunch written by a guy who has a BLP on Wikipedia, and whose BLP is tagged ARBPIA. They did not discuss the BLP article (or ARBPIA), meaning they did not discuss a Wikipedia article at all, they discussed a subject about which we have an article. Levivich 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. in case you didnt see it the first time around. nableezy - 17:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You still need to accurately describe the history here; "specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area" was not accurate. Note, by the way, that CounterPunch does not have an ARBPIA tag. Levivich 17:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You might have a point, except for the fact that they linked to Israel Shamir in their comment. Which, again for the obtuse, is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area per its talk page. So maybe you need to accurately describe the history here and stop blustering. Ah dammit, you got me to waste another keystroke on you. nableezy - 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
First of all, linking to an article is not the same thing as discussing it. I agree non-ECP editors shouldn't discuss articles that are tagged with ARBPIA. But you seem to be saying a non-ECP editor cannot even link to an article if the article is tagged with ARBPIA? That is so irrational. Levivich 18:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because the article linked to on CP by that user does not discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict either. Oh wait, no it does. And because quoting a person is not discussing him. And Im the irrational one here. ECP was designed for this purpose, to prevent these throwaway accounts from having an impact on our articles through voting in RFCs and AFDs and in editing the articles. And editors like you who so blatantly undermine that goal should be treated as the WP:MEAT aiding editors that they are, that is treated the same as the meat puppets themselves. Remind me of this the next time you say give me a diff of an editor sticking up for Icewhiz, before or after he was blocked. nableezy - 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussing a person is not the same thing as discussing a Wikipedia article about that person. ARBPIA doesn't mean that non-ECP editors can't link to outside sources if those outside sources mention ARBPIA somewhere. See my response to Selfstudier below. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
See my response on how people who aid WP:MEAT accounts should be treated above. Going back to my disinterest in discussing anything about this with you, but thinking it be better to remove the about this qualifier at this point. Toodles, back to waiting for an admin to deal with this. nableezy - 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You would need to consider why they would link it, wouldn't you? Anyhoo, Man on the Clapham omnibus applies (sorry, idk the US equivalent of that).Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The reason why they linked to it is because they were pointing to an article about that guy as evidence of antisemitism published by CounterPunch, and the link helps inform the reader (us fellow editors) of who this guy is (a notorious antisemite). Now, of course, every notorious antisemite will at some point write something about Israel, but that doesn't mean that just because a guy mentioned Israel means non-ECP editors can't mention that guy anywhere, even in a comment not about Israel. The problem is that ARBPIA is not the same thing as "anti-semitism", and we don't have 30/500 on "anti-semitism" as a whole. This (Special:Diff/1065201226) is clearly a comment about antisemitism in general, not about ARBPIA in particular. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
AS -> IHRA -> Israel/anti-Palestine, this picture gets drawn all the time so "not the same thing" but "broadly construed"...? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's stretching broadly construed too far. Antisemitism is not a part of the ARBPIA conflict, and ARBPIA doesn't cover all of anti-semitism. There's some overlap, but it's really quite small (antisemites are also anti-Israel, but I think that's the only overlap) (giving no credence to the argument sometimes made by some zealots that anti-Israel = antisemitism, which of course is bullshit). Levivich 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich - their comment in fact applies to both - ARBPIA and Holocaust in Poland, the topic area also covered by the same restriction. Quote from the user's statement - a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds.[9] Please give it a rest now and let administrators examine your behaviour, okay Levivich? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we not have this discussion here and at RSN (which is a derail anyway)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This is about whether or not extended confirmed applies to the discussion, which would normally be appealable here as per usual. RSN is for discussing the source, I am asking if the RFC is covered by the topic area. El C, any chance I can ask you to take a look at this? Or any other admin familiar with arbitration enforcement and the ARBPIA topic area? nableezy - 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking we stop discussing this at RSN until this is resolved here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that I agree with, sure. nableezy - 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
What this seems to be is trying to equate extended-confirmed with a topic-ban. A topic-banned user who mentions the taboo topic anywhere should and would get dinged for the violation. A non-ECP user who mentions an ECP topic somewhere on the project getting dinged? That is a curiously invasive stretch of policy, IMO. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
For RFC and other formal discussions ECP is essentially a topic ban. nableezy - 18:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Outside of the "is it covered by ARBPIA" question, there's a "would it improve the project for this RfC to be EC-protected" question. I'm landing on "emphatically yes" for the latter. The history of socking and canvassing makes that clear. Could we hold the RfC on a 500/30 protected subpage that's transcluded onto RSN for visibility? Firefangledfeathers 18:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Smart! Jehochman Talk 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
IMO, tagging with {{spa}} for the benefit of the closer, as FFF just did in this RFC for a single-edit account (see the Streisanding Note: below), is all that's needed to completely defeat this problem and neutralize any possible harm. Levivich 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: We have another one that just arrived - [10] - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Which for all we know could be a sock of a user trying to prove their case there is socking. So maybe we need a CU?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What a shocking development, a users first ever edit is to an RFC at an internal WikiProject. But dear me no, shouldnt worry about the socking and meatpuppeting in ARBPIA related discussions. Anybody who thinks that Icewhiz would use 5 socks in one RFC and it is somehow not related has drugs that I want to buy from them. I dont really care if it is purposeful or not, editors doing things like this are aiding in that disruption and should be sanctioned for it, but in the meantime can we deal with this issue? There is documented stealth canvassing, there is documented extensive sockpuppetry. I more than any of you want to stop talking about CounterPunch. I swear there will not be another reply from me in that RFC, just deal with this issue so that it can actually come to a valid consensus. Otherwise just say this topic belongs to Icewhiz and be done with it. nableezy - 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Given the prior disruption of the same discussion, to the point that it had to be redone, I think it is prudent that the new discussion be held on a subpage which is transcluded and EC protected to prevent further abuse. Could an administrator make it so? Jehochman Talk 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion its a trolling just mark it as spa and carry on the closer smart enough to discount his !vote Shrike (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. That might be appropriate in the first instance, but once some banned editors have disrupted a discussion, they should not be given a second chance to do so. We have an easy technical means to prevent this disruption. Let's use it. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that it is extremely unlikely that this particular RFC will be decided by socks - now that everyone is aware of the issue, people who comment will be scrutinized, and the closer will definitely know to examine commenters critically and take into account if someone looks suspicious. But my problem is that we can't realistically apply that level of vigilance to every single RFC; part of the reason the previous Counterpunch RFC was so different than how this one is going is because normally editors don't look closely at RFCs that seem to have an overwhelming conclusion, which allows socks to push things through by making their consensus appear obvious and inevitable if nobody is looking closely. And when it comes to combating that, I'm not seeing how we can realistically put only some RSN RFCs under ECP, since it is so easy for someone to base their opinion on a source on eg. just a single ECP-related article that source published. So I feel that while the Counterpunch RFC is a good example of the problem, we ought to be worrying more about long-term solutions - sockpuppetry is most dangerous in situations where we aren't paying close attention. --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Under current policy, the only reason to have this covered by extended confirmed required to participate is if it is broadly construed to be related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Given the extensive amount of material already in the RFC related to that topic area I find that to be fairly obvious, but thats the only thing I was looking for here. Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, but doubt its going to happen here. Still would like some uninvolved admin making a decision on if it, the RFC, is covered by ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry
We should insist the issue be dealt with here and now since such behaviour is very disruptive. Note how much energy is being wasted right now because of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Who are "the users" you are referring to? You didn't name anyone so it's unclear who you're talking about. Levivich 23:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. You. nableezy - 23:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Please sanction Levivich for disagreeing with me" would be even clearer :-) Levivich 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It’s a serious problem Levivich you appear to be attempting to turn it into a joke. I expect it’s not going to work this time around. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I wouldn't worry too much about this specific RFC. If socks can slip into and decide an RFC where we are at maximum vigilance then we're in so much trouble that there's not much we can do; fortunately I don't think that that's the case (as can be seen from the fact that we seem to have caught one sock already.) So I'd worry more about how we can tweak policy or practice to solve this problem for future RFCs rather than this one, which requires ideas that are practical, sustainable, don't require constant maximum vigilance, and which we can reasonably get the community to agree on. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, nableezy, I'm too busy for the next little while to look into this (or much of anything) even if I was so inclined. But carpet bombing the thread with collapseses might help with the lulz. Ah, cherished memories of RFRRRRRRR. You really had to be there. El_C 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Two comments, having now read all of the above. 1) I think Aquillion is right; the level of scrutiny on non-extended confirmed editors at the current RfC means it's not a problem. But I also don't think policing non-extended conformed eds would have made any difference to the original CounterPunch deprecation: I think the socks were all extended confirmed, and the two non-ECR editors who joined the discussion joined !voting very late and said almost nothing. 2) I don't think it is practical for editors or admins to check the articles non-ECR editors mention and see if they might be broadly covered by a protected topic if it's not immediately obvious. For example, I don't understand why Israel Shamir is considered to fall within ARBPIA: there's perhaps two sentences in the article that vaguely relate to Israel/Palestine, and it's not a topic Shamir has focused on much. (How do articles get tagged as ARBPIA, and what review and scrutiny does that get? Alice Walker also seems pretty tendentious, or even Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, which is being invoked in relation to another recent RSN RfC.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There were 4 non-EC accounts there, and one of them I suspect is an IW sock as well. nableezy - 15:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah OK. I guess that means that one of them became ECR since the RfC. And am I right that none of them said more than a sentence and that they all !voted late in the period the RfC was open? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Estnot and Crystalfile had the most substantive contributions. Incidentally, that was Crystalfile's last edit, and first since March, and excepting the 6 edits in early March 2021, all at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, third since 2014. Wonder how that happened. nableezy - 22:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question for uninvolved admins[edit]

Does the edit Special:Diff/1065201226 violate WP:PIA#500/30? Levivich 19:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A little insufficient, that framing, also this ARCA Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ARBPIA discussion or not?[edit]

@Nableezy: and I have a disagreement over whether a discussion at RSN falls under ARBPIA. Nableezy seems to be under the impression that anytime they mention the Arab-Israeli conflict that automatically excludes all non auto-confirmed editors from participating in the discussion even if the RFC is not about the conflict and the non auto-confirmed editors have not even mentioned the conflict or participated in threads which mention it. By my understanding this is too far down the slippery slope, almost every source has covered the Arab-Israeli conflict at some point so are we essentially banning non auto-confirmed editors from RSN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed above without resolution, and the discussion has further gone unambiguously in to the ARBPIA topic area. Forget how heavy the I/P socking was in the prior RFC, just look at the comments in this one. The majority of substantive arguments directly relate to the ARBPIA topic area. My own, Zero, Aquillion, non-extended confirmed and no edits made since (cough cough) DoraExp, BobFromBrockley, Nishidani, RaiderAspect, Dr Swag Lord, Loki, Chess, Charles Stewart, Tritomex, and Mlb96 all directly discuss either topics or authors that are listed in the ARBPIA topic area. Add all the per any of those people !votes and the discussion substantially centers around ARBPIA topics. And now, please remember what I asked you to forget. Seriously, 5 Icewhiz socks, a NoCal100 sock, and Yaniv mass emailing multiple times to canvass to that discussion. How exactly is that not, broadly construed, related to the Arab-Israeli topic area? nableezy - 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Most commenters don't mention those authors or the conflict broadly construed, now to you that may mean that they aren't substantive but I think your hyperfocus on one single topic area may be coloring your perception. To put it more cleanly I think you may be wearing ARBPIA tinted glasses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Most do, or they cite other editors that do. That is 100% true. I dont think I can say what I think about the people running interference for a collection of banned editors who have already repeatedly disrupted the discussions related to this source without being blocked for failing to assume good faith, but I think I am seeing this more clearly than you are, despite my "hyperfocus". nableezy - 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Also can you clarify whether or not your comment about "people running interference" was directed at me or not because as written it would appear to be a WP:NPA violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I find edits like this to be, whether purposely or not, actively assisting a collection of banned users who have repeatedly disrupted this and other discussions about this source, or more succinctly running interference for them. I have no idea if it is on purpose or not, but that is its effect. If this is related to ARBPIA you can report that comment to AE if youd like. If not, then idk ANI? nableezy - 17:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Being flip and uncivil isn't going to get us anywhere, I would really appreciate it if you could take a step back, WP:AGF, and stop making this personal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a secondary question but nableezy is also claiming that a list of authors which fall under ARBPIA exists[11] but I havent been able to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand, by listed as being in the topic area I mean the article on that author is shown to be in ARBPIA per its talk page. See for example Talk:Edward Said to give one example repeatedly discussed there. Or Talk:Israel Shamir for that matter. Both of those people are in the ARBPIA topic area, and discussions about them are likewise in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that how it works? Does this really mean that an entire discussion about postcolonialism comes under ARBPIA the moment someone mentions Said? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
How what works? If an article has the appropriate notices then yes it is considered to be in the topic-area. Discussions related to those topics are likewise within the topic-area. nableezy - 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
And you can link to something which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Definition_of_the_"area_of_conflict", Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction. nableezy - 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't find anything in either of those which says what you're saying, can you please be more specific? Note that Talk:CounterPunch does not appear to have a ARBPIA tag, perhaps that is a mistake? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Definition of the area of conflict: the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"). At standing sanctions at primary articles: All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Both of the authors I listed show the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template on their talk page and as such are "primary articles". At extended confirmed: However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. nableezy - 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Neither CounterPunch or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is tagged with that edit notice. This wasn't a discussion about the articles for those authors even if the authors themselves might have been discussed by other people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, discussions that focus on authors within the topic area are definitionally related to the topic area. No shit RSN does not have the edit notice, thats why the extended confirmed restriction specifies it applies to noticeboards and RFCs. The recent arb clarification (here) also contains this tidbit an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic This RSN discussion substantially discusses the ECR topic. nableezy - 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
But this discussion did not focus on those authors, they were only mentioned in passing (primarily by you). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes, the discussion with Chess was not at all related to the topic area. The repeated invocations of Israel Shamir were all by me too (including by non-EC users), and all just mentioned in passing. Obviously. That thread substantially discusses the ARBPIA topic area, and I cannot honestly believe that anybody can argue otherwise in good faith. Whether or not that is purposely running interference for said group of banned editors ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 18:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm just trying to find out were the line is here, I would also note that I've had much more conflict with that group of banned editors than I've had with you... If any discussion of Said is automatically ARBPIA I think thats an overreach, I also don't like the idea that an editor can effectively exclude non confirmed editors from any given discussion simply by bringing in a topic tangentially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That seems too easy to misuse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The question of how far "broadly construed" should reach was ducked at the ARCA on the grounds you could not generalize the specific circumstances of any case in advance. So it needs to be time by time, somehow.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
In that case it seems that one would not be able to tag non confirmed users as ineligible to participate until an admin has made the case-by-case determination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"The matters under consideration here may be "broadly construed" as falling under Arbpia rules and the closer is asked to consider whether, in accordance with this ARCA, opinions from editors not ecp qualified, should be taken into account when evaluating consensus." or something like that parked at the outset of a discussion? Maybe.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The tag which was used is this one. The user also has under 500 edits and is ineligible to contribute to project discussions related the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (now that I look at it I realize that the "also" is not part of the tag but is bleezy ad libing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
As well as ducking the question, no guidance was given as to what precise process ought to be used. So we need to come up with one, I guess (strictly speaking, it's not just Arbpia, it's any ecp area).Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The section up the page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#CounterPunch_RFC_and_extended_confirmed is also about this subject.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I asked Nableezy's permission on my talk page to open a centralized discussion [12], they replied "of course" [13] but neglected to mention that such a discussion already existed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we should just make it a subsection of #CounterPunch_RFC_and_extended_confirmed instead of a close and redirect, it is essentially a continuation of the same discussion and would have been opened as such if Nableezy had been kind enough to inform me about its existence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Floguenbeam: I thought I'd written that non-ECP editors cannot make comments that relate to the A-I area. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Floquenbeam.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the ping. Unfortunately, I'm confused why I was pinged in the first place. @Doug Weller:, what does that have to do with my suggestion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:so am I. It was an error. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Its not so clear cut. This site publishes other stuff too. For example general reliability discussion about NYTIMES wouldn't be I/P though it publishes plenty of I/P stuff Shrike (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Jewish Chronicle Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Jewish_Chronicle) is a better example.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Orrrrr you could just make a ruling on if it is in the topic area, appealable to AE or ARCA and then we can close everything? nableezy - 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Block of LittleFinn9[edit]

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

LittleFinn9 (talk · contribs) was blocked for NOTHERE and trolling; two unblock requests were declined. I am of the opinion that they should be unblocked (as unblocks are cheap and so are reblocks). I propose a reminder to follow NOTSOCIAL and perhaps some restriction from unnecessary user talkpage edits (i.e. not required by our processes). Discussion at their talk page was inconclusive, so here I am per BLOCKPOL. (The blocking & responding admins will be notified.) I could certainly be wrong and will happily accept that they should remain blocked. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Unblocks are cheap, go for it -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. My opinion remains unchanged from when I declined an unblock request by the user, but I won't stand in the way of unblocking. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm with 331dot. If you (or anyone) would like to lift the block, I won't stand in your way. It may be the right call. But their continued insistence they did nothing wrong concerns me. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock per TNT. I can understand Finn's reaction given their lack of experience on Wikipedia. 15 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • meh (oppose) - Normally I'm fine with second chances, but it's hard to see this as a second chance when they don't really seem to get why they were blocked in the first place. Not saying "no" directly, but I don't feel like it's a good idea. I'm also concerned the comments they are making are more likely what they think we want to hear rather than sincere. Dennis Brown - 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock. To me this looks like possibly a younger user who may not realize their behavior would be seen as suspicious. Could it be yet another troll pretending to be that? Sure, but if they are it'll become clear soon enough. valereee (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. I've stated my reasons on the user's Talk page, and they haven't changed. I don't find the user's reasons for their edits plausible, meaning bluntly that I think they're lying, and their disingenuous "What about my aforementioned actions and conduct constitutes as 'trolling'?" only confirms my suspicions. Nor do I think this is "a younger user" - "aforementioned"? how many young people do you know who write like that? Also, what new user says things like "I assume a checkuser has already verified that my IP is unique"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do get it. I've wasted my time on trolls. My feeling is that if we have a hundred trolls and one not-troll-who-looks-like-a-troll, we still are made better off by making sure the looks-like-a-troll really is one. valereee (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it's better to unblock a user and keep an eye on them instead of having them make a new account and restart the whole process. How about asking this user to explain what productive thing they plan to do, and if they enunciate something that's actually productive, give them a chance to redeem themselves or to prove beyond a doubt that we need to play Whac-A-Mole? Jehochman Talk 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    We unblock to prevent them from socking? The user has said they want to edit manga and anime articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Unblocking provides fresh CU data. 🙂 Jehochman Talk 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    They've already posted today on their talk page. That logged their IP, user agent, etc. Nothing further to be gained for CU by unblocking; that would be the wrong reason. Dennis Brown - 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    That data will be stale in 89 days. If they are unblocked they will keep supplying fresh data. Meanwhile, there’s chance they might settle down and be productive because they’ve taken the effort to request unblock. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not a CU, but I'm pretty sure you are underestimating what they can do and maintain. And as someone whos worked a LOT of SPI cases in my early admin-hood, the idea of unblocking someone so they won't sock makes me want to do a spit-take. That is not how it is done. Dennis Brown -
  • Unblock, even if what they did and what they're saying is a little suspicious, it's plausible the editor just doesn't know how to properly behave in Wikipedia because they're new and that they'll learn shortly. As others said above, unblocking and reblocking is cheap. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock because the user violated no policies, caused no harm, and was not warned (or even talked to) before being blocked. This was a bad block and bad unblock denials, too. We don't have a system where admins act as gatekeepers and decide who gets to edit and who doesn't based on an evaluation of early contribs. Ahem. Levivich 16:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock I fully agree with Levivich here. People oppose unblocking the user on the grounds that they haven't plead guilty to the "epic felony" they committed... but what exactly is the real crime here? I agree that leaving extraneous messages on user talks isn't the most productive thing one can do around here, and I agree, it is a bit suspicious that a newcomer knows the permissions of a CU, but all of this isn't enough to warrant an indef block. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Procedurally, it was inappropriate for Enterprisey to close this discussion and unblock the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    They posted here to get feedback, and then decided what to do. The thread closes because the issue is now moot. Any admin can unblock—no consensus is required. There was no community ban. If the user does something further that is bad, they could be blocked again. I strongly urge the opposers not to go looking for a pretense to block. This is a human being, not a football. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I dare say we'll find out we were wrong soon enough; it's just a shame these things tend to waste a lot of time and energy before getting resolved. SN54129 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I dare say spending all day every day blocking editors is WP:NOTHERE behavior. Levivich 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't particularly want to interact with someone who thinks this is a clever thing to say, but I also don't want this smug bullshit to pass into the archive uncontested. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not clever; true, and needing to be said. It really is bad for the project that we have a few editors who spend all their time blocking other editors. Levivich 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, because blocking trolls and socks is not helping the project, and the people who do the yeoman's work of making this a hospitable place for the rest of us are to be belittled by those who have nearly 10% of their edits to ANI despite not being an admin. nableezy - 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In the rush to assume good faith with LittleFinn9, an important task has fallen through the cracks; who is going to leave a message for CreecregofLife, explaining that we at WP:AN do not care that they are being serially harassed by a series of socks, of whom LittleFinn is no doubt the latest? I don't really want to be the one to do it, as it would make me feel bad, but someone needs to, so I guess I will. Someone up above mentions that it's better to let 99 trolls continue to troll for a while longer, so we don't accidentally block one innocent person. I don't think the plight of the 99 targets of the 99 trolls has been taken into account in that benefit/cost analysis. And at least we could have picked someone more plausibly innocent than LittleFinn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I regret my post-closure comment. I think Jehochman was correct and that I was looking at this discussion from the wrong perspective. I can't say I'm happy with the unblock or especially Enterprisey's apology to the user on their Talk page, but, based on the discussion, Enterprisey was entitled to unblock. I can also assure Jehochman that I have no intention of blocking LittleFinn9, no matter what they do, and not because of Jehochman's comment, but because it would be highly irregular and probably wheel-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I personally would keep an eye on how long they take to get going in the mainspace.--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I didn't fully review the sock-related aspects of the situation because I'm used to dealing with blocks where everything is spelled out more. For that, and for jumping the gun a little, I apologize. I certainly care that CreecregofLife has been serially harassed, so I'm fine with the initial block. However, my evaluation of LittleFinn9's talk page hasn't changed, so I stand by the unblock. Reblocks are cheap. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

IP hopping abusive vandal[edit]

Just a head's up, there's an IP hopping vandal that leaves "charming" messages like these that has led to a bunch of user talk pages being semi-protected. There's too big a variation to range block. If this carries on, I think we've got a use case to ask the WMF to disable IP editing permanently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to sound too glib, but this is your idea of what will convince the WMF to end IP editing? This is basically nothing as far as abuse goes around here. No threats, no outing, no BLP violations, just a self-censored swear word. And in this case, all that happens if we ban IP editing is that this person is mildly inconvenienced and has to create a new account every time they get blocked, and if they're already an IP-hopper that's hardly an issue. Nobody should have to take abuse, of course, but if you're going to strike a dramatic pose and say we've got a use case to ask the WMF to disable IP editing permanently, at least say it about one of the real abusers. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 18:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Inconveniencing vandals is precisely the point. To elaborate, we can't stop disruption from determined attackers, but we can certainly throw up barriers to make achieving their goals more difficult. I can only think of one other large site besides Wikipedia that doesn't require registration to post: 4chan -FASTILY 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Fastily, don't get me wrong, I'm solidly on team "require registration" (guess that makes me Team Iron Man in this discussion). I'm just astounded that a vandal who uses a few self-censored naughty words is supposed to be the big example of why IP editing needs to go, rather than one of the folks who got WMF-banned for very good reasons. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Even when Eric Corbett was telling somebody to fuck off in a heated debate, he didn't need his comments redacted, like this, that and the other - which are a heck of a lot worse (AFAIK Eric never accused anyone of supporting the Third Reich, nor would I ever have dreamed he would). That's ended up with my talk page semi-protected (I don't like that, I like to keep free speech there), along with one other, and Wikipedia talk:Administrators and at least one other article talk page - which is just the sort of thing I wouldn't want to protect as it stops IPs making simple changes and requests. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
So your answer to IPs not being able to make simple changes and requests is to ban IP editing altogether? I think your circular reasoning rather defeats itself there. WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if the average user will not be able to see the IP addresses of anonymous users, anonymous editing should just be disabled. I am not satisfied with the WMF's decision, and I'm especially annoyed that they can't give us any good reason for it. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't blind-block socks[edit]

As I work cases at WP:SPI, I find lots of accounts which are blocked with a generic "abusing multiple accounts" in the block log. Please, when you block somebody as a sock, put in the block message who they're a sock of. Even better, put {{Sockpuppet}} on their user page, since that gets them into the right category. If you're feeling really adventurous, you can open an SPI report, mark it "pro forma", and immediately close it, so it gets into the SPI archives. All of these things help future people investigating cases. Thank you for your support. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes it is clear that an account is a sock, but we don't know of whom. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In order to know that someone is misusing multiple accounts, you have to be able to at least point to multiple accounts. (I say this as an editor whom many people think is clearly a sock, but they don't know of whom.) Levivich 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
You know, Levivich, you could just tell us whose sock you are and save us all some time... SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 18:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
WO already figured out I'm Jimbo's WP:BADHAND account. Levivich 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just inviting an "I'm Spartacus" response. Let's get it started by saying that Levivich is my sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Oops! I accidentally signed into my Phil Bridger account when I typed that! --Bison X (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are some cases where I look at the actions of an account, and it's clear that it's a sock, but I'm not sure of whom. In those cases, I tend to go with long-term abuse for the block reason. Does that fall into the same problematic area? If I know who it's a sock of, I usually flag it; there have been times I've messaged other admins to ask if a particular user rings a bell as a sock. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused. How could it be clear it's a sock, but not of whom? I apologize if I'm being dense, this is a sincere question. valereee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking of situations where a new account goes to another user's talk page and launches into a rant against them. Usually it's blockable for some other reason, like personal attacks, but often you can tell it's somebody who got blocked and is back to continue the argument that got them blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to push on this point, but in that case, it should be fairly easy to figure out the identity of the prior account (whomever was previously engaged in the same argument) so it doesn't seem to be a situation where we can't figure out who it's a sock of. Also, in that situation, you'd be blocking for a reason other than socking (PA). Is there a situation where the only thing a person is doing wrong is socking, they're blocked only for socking, but we don't know who it's a sock of? Levivich 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No, but I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Saying to an apparently good-faith editor "You look really experienced, so you must be a sock" is WP:ASPERSIONS. But saying to a disruptive user "This obviously isn't your first rodeo so I'm skipping the Four Warnings(TM) bullshit and going straight to a block" (not in so many words) is not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Well, but then you know whom, don't you? Again, apologies if I'm being dense. valereee (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. (ec) They might be one of those LTAs who like to imitate other LTAs. If you spend too much time worrying if it's the original LTA, or the copycat, you're dancing to the LTA's tune.
  2. They might be doing something really obvious, like leaving a homophobic slur on an admin's talk page, as their first and only edit. Obviously, they're not really a new user, but is it worth figuring out which of the 10000 users blocked by that admin they are?
  3. Sometimes you do know but for privacy reasons the connection shouldn't be stated. Perhaps the user is a child, and used their real name for the "master" account.
  4. Sometimes you do know, but prefer to WP:DENY. We have some LTAs who like to tag their own userpages. Some don't take it that far, but might still be getting a thrill out being "recognized". Why feed them?
Obviously this list is not exhaustive. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
But 1 and 2 cover the cases I'm thinking of. Basically the kind of block where you know it's not their first rodeo, but they're persistent enough that it's not their last, so you block this go-round as a sockpuppet, not here..., or LTA. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
But there are 4 billion people with internet access. If it's #1 someone doing the things that got the LTA blocked last time, do we care if they're a sock or not? #2, leaving a homophobic slur on an admin's page, fine, they should be blocked for that, again why do we care whether they're a sock? #3, but then we do know who? Same #4. I feel like I'm not getting the point here. #1 and 2 are doing bad things. #3 and 4, we know the socks. Where are we blocking account simply because they're abusing multiple accounts but we don't know which? valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Well you have an user who is (A) disrupting, and (B) socking. I think it's admin discretion what to mention in the block summary. There's nothing wrong with ignoring the socking and just blocking as NOTHERE or VOA or whatever. But if some admins want to mention the socking also, I don't see the harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at the last time I did it. I could find the last user to get blocked for the same behaviour, and that user's talk page block message was vandalism-only, but their log message was checkuser-block. All I knew was it was the Johnny Gilbert date of birth account again, so I blocked the user and picked sock. In retrospect, I should probably have picked LTA, since the checkuser did not note related accounts or a SSP investigation, so there was none of that to link to. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The most obvious case to me is when the user self identifies as a sock, without specifying previous accounts or IPs. The taunting "I have access to lots of IPS or accounts and you'll never block all of them" Block on sight, and it does not matter who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs) 22:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • From the above, it looks like WP:VOA might be an acceptable block reason in some of these cases as well, sidestepping the issue. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, that's the ultimate in WP:DENY: pretend you had no idea. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Update:. Yes, I know about DENY. And, yes, I agree that sometimes it's obvious that somebody's socking, even if you can't identify the master. But, I'm really talking about the case where you do know who the master is, and there's no reason to keep it a secret. Recording that knowledge really helps in future SPI investigations. When you're working a case, what you need is examples of previous behavior to compare the current suspect to, and if you can't identify who the previous socks are, that's hard to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel on Himachal Pradesh[edit]

I would like to see this revision deletion reverted. It was done per WP:RD1 to remove a small amount of copyrighted text. Given that the copyvio was noticed relatively late, this resulted in the deletion of a large number of intervening edits and obscured the provenance of a decent amount of newly added content.

This is against current policy: see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the details, including a caveat about a novel interpretation that – if adopted – could result in a change to those policies. But even if that were to happen – so far there has been zero indication of that – this revdel would still likely appear as disproportionate. That's because in order to completely expunge less than 0.7 kB of copyvio text, it resulted in the deletion of about 60 intervening edits and so has erased traceability for the numerous changes introduced in them, as well as for the 2.5 kB of text that they added. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's anything we can do about incorrect use of revdel: per WP:REVDEL#Appeal and discussion of actions, "[s]uch a review should take place at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I do agree that deleting 61 revisions is a questionable large-scale use of revdel, although it may well be within discretion nonetheless. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:XRV might also be a reasonable location--it's not listed on the things that belong there or the things that don't (I don't think). But yeah, DRV is the wrong place I'm afraid. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is an example of one of several ways in which Wikipedia's policies relating to copyright are in fact unworkable and self-contradictory. If I find text which infringes my copyright, I can legally require all versions of the page in which it appears to be removed from public view. However, Wikipedia policy is that history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question. It isn't possible to satisfy both requirements. Personally, if I see a relatively small copyright infringement which would require the loss of dozens of revisions in order to remove it, I normally leave it alone, unless it seems to me that there's some reason why it's particularly problematic. However, once the content has been removed, I absolutely would never restore it, no matter what Wikipedia policy or consensus among editors might say, because if I did so I would be knowingly breaking the law. Also, I wouldn't recommend that any other administrator do so either. The law has to take precedence over what a group of Wikipedia editors think. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the situation, but it seems to me that that's how it is. JBW (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've no idea what was there, but copyright law (in the US and in general) isn't black-and-white. Unless this was a huge portion of the original work it is very likely it falls under "fair use". I feel like I should give a Wiki-seminar on the issue some day. Or maybe I'll write an essay. But no, it's almost certainly not breaking the law. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you lawyer and are you giving legal advice? nableezy - 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It's possible to offer a well-informed view about copyright on a Wikipedia discussion page without being a lawyer or giving legal advice. Hobit does in fact know what he's talking about.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I wrote "if I see a relatively small copyright infringement..." Perhaps I should, to be strictly accurate, have said "if I see a relatively small element which I think is likely to be a copyright infringement", but my statement was premised on there actually being a copyright infringement. It is perfectly true that many so-called "copyvios" on Wikipedia aren't actually copyright infringements under United States law, but that is a different issue. JBW (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Hobit: I have thought very carefully about this, and I am confident you are mistaken. "Fair use" in United States copyright law applies to a fairly limited set of circumstances, and it pretty clearly doesn't include telling everyone in the world that they are free to reuse the material for any purpose whatsoever, including purposes which aren't covered by the concept of fair use, which is what anyone posting it to Wikipedia is doing. That is why Wikipedia's copyright policies make an exception for "fair use" only for images, not for text, for which Wikipedia's licensing terms are significantly different. JBW (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Sorry, been away. I don't have time right now, but I'll jump back in soon. But no, fair use isn't a fairly limited set of circumstances, it applies quite broadly.. But [14] gives an okay overview, [15] is better. But fair use is rarely a black-and-white thing and while I'm not a lawyer, small quotes of text are often much safer to grab than an image because of point 3--it's harder to grab a useful portion of an image than it is a useful part of text. Now if you are copying a novel and putting the whole thing on the web to make money while adding no commentary, fair use is pretty much out the window (fails 1, 2, 3, and maybe 4 if there really is a market for it). But things here are almost always going to do well on point 1. Gah, sorry, really don't have time for this right now, but it's more fun than what I should be doing. Oh, last thing, as I recall, the reason we have fair use stuff for images is partly (mostly?) so commercial enterprises using our work can figure out what they should pull out. Because images are a lot harder to justify wrt fair use. I'll find links to that later. None of this is hugely relevant--it's generally good that people are really careful with copyright here. Again, INL, but I do teach some of this so I've had to learn the basics. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep in mind, US Fair Use law is a defense, not an allowance. The scales are weighted against the entity that reused material to prove it meets fair use, it is not a presumption that it is allowed. As we should strive to keep WP out of copyright problems, we generally edge on making sure we're tighter on copyrighted materials. --Masem (t) 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that after the amount of time I have spent on Wikipedia I should have known better than to think I could come to AN and make a statement relating to copyright which broadly expressed what I meant, without the risk of then being dragged further and further into having to more precisely define the terms I used. When I said that "fair use" applies in "fairly limited set of circumstances" I didn't mean in a closely defined or precisely delimited set of circumstances; I simply meant that there are some circumstances in which it applies, and many more in which it doesn't. Hobit, the first link you have given above says, amongst other things, that an example of the criteria likely to be used in assessing a fair use defence is "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". (My emphasis.) That is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to: someone may post something on Wikipedia in a way which in itself might be defensible as fair use, but announcing to the world "Hey, I give you permission to use this if you like, including commercial purposes to enrich your business" might well be seen as violation of the copyright holder's rights. I believe that statement to be substantially true, but even if a lawyer could find reasons why it is not exactly accurate, I don’t care, because I am 100% sure of the essential point, namely that using copyrighted material in a particular way is not the same as announcing that you have the right to give blanket permission to others to use the same material in any way whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, and that you are hereby granting such permission. I am confident that there are situations where the first of those would stand a chance of being accepted by a court and the second wouldn't, and I really don't care whether the particular way I have expressed it is precisely legally correct. JBW (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
JBW, which policy requires that "history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question"? WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) both mention "a list of all authors" as sufficient, despite that method being less precise than your statement. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Flatscan: The policy on revision deletion states that revision deletion for copyright reasons cannot be used if it would remove "any contributor's attribution". We could fill up a very large amount of space debating whether there is any way of making sense of that compatible with "any contributor's attribution" meaning no more than a list of contributors, since revision deletion of copyright infringing content doesn't remove contributors' names, but doing so would be totally pointless. To me that is a policy saying that we should not remove the record of what contribution one editor made because another editor infringed copyright, but if you prefer to mentally substitute some expression such as "the preferred practice, supported by a strong consensus of editors" for "policy" in my comment above then you are welcome to do so. JBW (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: The longstanding wording of RD1 has consensus, but the disagreement centers on the meaning of "attribution". I believe that the RD1's weight of policy originates from WP:Copyrights, so these pages should have the consistent interpretation that "a list of all authors" – name only – is sufficient. Previous discussions WT:Revision deletion#RfC on Change RD1-wording (2017, 5-3) and WT:Revision deletion/Archive 4#RD1 wording (2014, 3-1) leaned in this direction. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Deleting a revision is an administrative decision so I feel that XRV would be the preferred venue for this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse the deletion of 61 revisions within two months as within discretion. Uanfala, are you looking for something specific in that history range? The majority of non-revert additions were by User:UnpetitproleX (then User:Unpetitprole). My assumption is that 2409:4060:2D98:9A3A:5C0B:B19A:F479:9256 added a {{Pie chart}} (which you removed) and updated some numbers. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    The deleted revisions [16] added 2,542 bytes of text and made a number of modifications to the existing content. Deleting these revisions means that we don't know who contributed which content, and why each of the changes was made (see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the various problems that this may cause). – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am asking for specific revisions, content, or changes that you believe to be inaccessible or muddled. For example, if data or a source was lost when the chart was removed, an admin would be able to retrieve that. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, we have the following options:
  1. No revdel, each edit is clearly attributed
  2. Yes revdel, keeping the list of intermediate authors intact as attribution.
  3. Revert to pre-revdel version, take each author in turn and do an edit summing up his/her cumulative edits, with attribution in the summery. This attribution, of course, won't change if the user is ever renamed. (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've linked to the WT:REVDEL thread with the explanations above, but I guess it may be of benefit to summarise the more salient points. The policy at WP:RD1 states that blatant violations of copyright can be redacted, though if doing so would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. The how-to guide at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins further elaborates that [i]t may be a good idea to use revdel for copyvios, but [o]therwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it. I don't know what others take away from here, but for me this clearly shows that revision deletion is not obligatory and that it is explicitly forbidden in cases like the one here. For those endorsing the deletion, it may be helpful to explain why it's within admin discretion to violate policy here. – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree with your interpretation of "attribution", expanding it to incorporate "traceability", as I find it at odds with its meaning in WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline). (I linked them in a previous comment above.) RD1 would be hamstrung if its use were restricted to a sequence of edits by the copyvio-introducing user interrupted only by reverted or reverting edits. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As someone who has done 1000s of uncontested RD1 revision deletions, I don't believe there is any issue with this revdel. I read "any contributor's attribution" as keeping the editors name in the page history; non-admins can see the user's name in the history and non-admins can see that they made an edit, they just can't see what was added in the edit. Therefore, attribution is still kept. That said there's no exact standard for what is revdeled for copyvio and what isn't. I tend to be more liberal with not revdeling some edits than others, but I am willing to delete 1000s of revisions if the plagiarism is that large and extensive. On the other hand, I think it is overkill to delete several revisions for some paraphrasing issues and try to not do so. Every admin has different standards and opinions on the matter, and I've been meaning to start an extensive RFC on the matter to get consensus on the scope of revdels. I would like a co-drafter, so if someone wants to do that please reach out. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 20:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Your reading of "any contributor's attribution" may well be right, but as I point out below, the actual wording of the license is that each contributor is to "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". I don't see how what we're doing here would succeed at doing that. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A JBW points out, we are between a rock and a hard place. First of all, the Foundation's policy on copyright infringement is much stricter than US law in some respects. The entire purpose of RevDel isn't to remove copyright infringement "because we are nice guys". It is to remove any liability in a court of law, as we can demonstrate we took action to remove the infringing material from our archives and pages. When it comes to copyright and RevDel, it is probably better to err on the side of using too much, rather than using too little. There is still attribution to the editors caught in the middle, we just don't know what they attributed for. Keep in mind, Oversight/Suppression removes even more, although typically for different reasons. But it's the same problem. I've never heard of an editor needing the specifics of attribution to maintain their copyright on an edit caught in the middle of one of these RevDels, so weighing the potential damage versus the damage of not removing all instances of infringement, again, you err on the side of removing. So I endorse. Dennis Brown - 20:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Again, I don't know the details in this case and IANL. But doing what you propose--losing track of who contributed what, is probably more of a black-and-white violation. The CC BY-SA license we use indicates that Wikipedia can use other's work, but that you are to "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". [17]. I don't think contibutors are going to sue us over this, but if they did, as I read it they'd be in the right. One could even make an argument that anyone who edits such an article is in violation of the license because they aren't retaining an indication of previous modification. But this is all a bit silly--there are so many steps before anyone could really have a case against Wikipedia, worrying about legal liability for something like this is pretty far fetched. The DMCA's safe harbor provisions probably apply to Wikipedia, so the worst reasonable case is a takedown notice I'd think. TLDR: it's good to be careful with copyright, but attribution is required under CC BY-SA and if we are violating that license for a given contribution, we have no rights to use that contribution and any use of it is now a copyright violation. It's not a rock and a hard place, it's a rock and the same rock. But in most cases the situation is likely worse when we don't respect the rights of our contributors--it's more text and we're taking the whole thing they contributed which makes a fair use argument a lot harder. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • According to wmf:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content, editors agree that a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions) is sufficient attribution for their contribution. DanCherek (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text (policy) and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) also cover this. (I have linked them a few times in this discussion.) Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The confusion here stems from the fact that you're quoting CC-BY-SA 4.0, while we use the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license, which has no similar language requiring to carry the specifics of any modifications or adaptations of the material of contributors. Unless memory fails me, the addition of the line you quote is one of the reasons the WMF has stuck to 3.0. MLauba (Talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      @Hobit to add on to what MLuaba says, we can't even use text licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, as the WMF has said it is not compatible with our CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 18:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      And this is why I'm not a lawyer. Details like that are important. Thanks to those that pointed it out. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I also have over a thousand (mostly) uncontested revision deletions. For me, this is an edge case. Copyvio stayed for two months in a high-traffic article, and several dozen revisions had to be deleted. Probably still a reasonable time period and almost a reasonable number of revisions. I would say it is still within discretion of the admin, but close to the limit.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, but "discretion" is a nonsense argument. Administrators have no special discretion when it comes to implementation of WMF's terms of use and licensing. Fortunately for us, it's also an entirely unnecessary argument. As noted above by several users, Wikipedia's licensing requires attribution in the form of a list of authors. Revdel maintains the list, which is still accessible through the page history. We have no requirement to attribute every tittle of the text to each individual author on a byte-by-byte basis. AlexEng(TALK) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, and of course IANAL etc but if we're talking about legal issues, putting aside what out terms of use say and what the CC BY-SA 3.0 says, we don't actually have to comply with CC BY-SA 3.0 in most cases. We only have to comply with one of the CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL since all contributors here have agreed to dual licence their contributions. The only case when we must comply with the CC BY-SA 3.0 is when we've added content from somewhere else that is only licenced under the CC BY-SA 3.0 or some other compatible licence which isn't compatible with the GFDL. While as a matter of policy, we require that our content is compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 hence you cannot import text which is only licenced under the GFDL, this does not affect ultimately we only have to comply with one of the licences to fulfill our obligations to our contributors, just like any re-user of our content. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would add that if we put aside what the ToU says and what the licences say and the advice we've been giving for a long time for how we ensure copyright compliance; if we really couldn't delete revisions without violating our contributor's copyrights, we'd have a major problem. Let's put aside revdeletions of copyright violations, there are sometimes other reasons why a lot of revisions have to be deleted, especially BLP or privacy issues. Remembering also that even deletion of revisions on this page and other talk pages is a problem unless you argue that a list of revisions isn't but a list of revisions along with talk page signatures is enough. Again IANAL etc so perhaps an "end justifies the means" argument could be made that to protect against libel but it seems a bit odd to me that we can violate someone unrelated's copyright for this reason. But in any case, there is also a lot of stuff where there's no risk of libel e.g. real names and other personal details of article subjects or even family members or other people, and also of contributors (sometimes including outing) and it seems even more dubious to claim we are allowed to violate contributors' copyright to rev-delete in those cases. Also, as mentioned my Moonriddengirl and others, it isn't just random advice but it's the pratice we've been following too when the issue arises. (Nowadays we generally try to ensure the article is undeleted somewhere whenever possible and if it's translation link to the translation, but I'm fairly sure you can find cases where all we have are a list of contributors.) So if we didn't already cover this in the ToU or it wasn't enough, we really need to fix this in some way. I mean we could somehow craft an exception that covers those cases only, but why? It makes much more sense that we ensure we legally can rev delete whenever, and decide by policy when we should do so. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask the WMF[edit]

I just sent this email to Legal:

As a result of this AN thread (permalink) I'm asking a question about whether revdeling copyright violations, in particular revdeling several revisions over a long period of time, is consistent with Wikipedia's creative commons license.

In particular, the RD1 criteria for copyright violations says "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used". There has been some debate over what this means; my reading is that, as long as the usernames of the editors are kept in the history, then attribution is still kept, even if non admins cannot see it. Therefore, revdeletions over a long period of time are ok. In doing larger revision deletions for copyright, I believe most admins adhere to this particular reading.

I'm asking if my interpretation of keeping attribution is correct and in line with Wikipedia's creative commons license and the related attribution requirements. If it is not, I ask what should instead be done in the case of large scale revision deletions. I will post this email to the AN discussion, in order for the community to know what I have exactly asked, and so that this question can have a public answer.

Also pinging Moonriddengirl who may have something to say. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Moneytrees, I am one of those admins ("attribution" to me means "who edited" not necessarily "what each person added"), so please either ping me here or otherwise let me know of Legal's reply to your query. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It will definitely be good to have that issue clarified, though I would like to point out that the notion of attribution is not confined to its legal aspect. There's also one other thing that we'll need to ask the legal team about: whether revdelling is necessary in the first place. One of the competing assumptions in this discussion is that having small-scale copyright violations in the history of pages will pose a legal risk to the foundation. I think we need to find out if that is indeed the case. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I do have something to say although it won't be as useful as what Legal will have to say. Nota bene that I have not read all of the discussion below. Somebody pointed out to me that I had been pinged, and since I don't have a ton of time I've only read the above. Also, I am not a lawyer. I work for WMF Legal, but copyright is not part of my job other than leading the team who executes on the attorneys' directions in cases of DMCA. I'm speaking in my volunteer hat totally. :) Legal has spoken to the issue of copyright violations in page history in the past, but it's always important to remember that legal opinions will change according to evolving issues of precedent. See m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories. (Frankly, knowing that the Foundation's attorneys are not able to provide legal advise to volunteers, I've always found that a bit opaque - but I understand why it is.) However, for me, revdeletion of copyright violation was never primarily about the issue of hosting copyvio content in a past edit; it was primarily about the many times those of us who worked on copyright infringement saw material inadvertently returned. When page histories become complex, people do not necessarily notice even ALL CAPS edit summaries saying that copyrighted content has been removed and must not be restored, and in cleaning up present copyright issues by reverting to earlier versions, I have myself returned major infringing material without realizing that the older edit was problematic. It has long been Wikipedia policy, well before I began working in copyright, that a list of authors was sufficient to meet the requirements of the license. Before revdeletion was a thing, guidance in some cases was to restore the content without the copyvio and include an attribution list of authors on the talk page. This suffices according to Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#List_of_authors. As the Terms of Use notes, an attribution may be supplied in any of the following fashions: "in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)" Just as we have supplied lists of contributors in the past on talk pages, I myself have considered edit histories a list of contributors even if individual edits are not identifiable (as they are not, through lists of authors). However, I have also always yielded to Wikilegal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
So it turns out we already have some guidance from the Legal team. Even though it doesn't give us the sort of "OK"–"Not OK" answer that we would have liked to, it certainly provides a lot of useful context. And it does seem to throw out of the window the notion that the foundation could get into legal trouble because of unredacted copyvios in old revisions.
The question then arises, why do we do revdel for small-scale copyright infringements in the first place, intervening edits or no intervening edits? Moonriddengirl's comment above points to the expedience of preventing the restoration of the infringing content by editors digging through the page history. But as hinted in this subsection, revdel'ing may also make it more difficult for the watchers of a page to recognise it if the infringing material is added again. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
To avoid having to drag either the well-meaning newbie through 3RR, or the volunteer who removed the infringing material to get dragged to there. To signal that the content was problematic and should not be readded. To ensure that future editors don't look at the history, notice that 2k text got suddenly removed a few months ago and just paste it back in without paying attention to the edit summary that removed it, or the copyclean notice on the talk page. To follow the precautionary principle in all copyvio matters. It's far from perfect, but it's the least imperfect system we have, even when it comes at the cost of occasional wall of text ANI discussions and confusion between license versions. MLauba (Talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, if the current practices are all down to these minor – and, as pointed out above, not uncontroversially relevant – practicalities, then it seems really difficult to see justification for them. Unless someone points out relevant new legal considerations, then I think the best way to avoid such walls of text at AN in future is to have a big RfC reconfirming our policies and then making sure people stick to them. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, you state And it does seem to throw out of the window the notion that the foundation could get into legal trouble because of unredacted copyvios in old revisions. No it doesn't. She opined as an editor, talking about some of the motivation. She did NOT say there is zero risk of legal action. You need to read more carefully. If you had read what she linked, you would have seen "Section 108 of the Copyright Act[2] allows libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works under certain circumstances. However, this statute likely does not apply to archives with only a digital presence, such as Wikipedia page histories, and therefore probably does not exempt the use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia from infringement liability. Fair use may be invoked as a defense in the event of copyright infringement in Wikipedia page histories, but the judicial outcome of asserting fair use is generally unpredictable. " which is the official position, and certainly is NOT saying there is no liability. In fact, is clearly saying we are not immune to action by a copyright holder, we would have to invoke Fair Use, and that may not stand up in court. So you are mistaken, there is a legal consideration when we RevDel infringing material. It isn't always the only reason, but it is always one of them. Dennis Brown - 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It was precisely because of reading that document that I posted above. The passage that's most relevant here is the following: In the case of Wikipedia page histories, [if a fair use defense fails in court,] the potentially liable party would be the user who uploaded the copyrighted work, as that initial upload is what allegedly violates the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Additionally, downstream re-users of the work may risk liability if their own use of the work is not permissible under fair use or another defense. Is there anything I'm missing here? – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • What you are missing is the fact that you don't want Wikipedia to be dragged to court to begin with. Even if you win, it is very expensive and time consuming. You avoid this by removing obvious infringement from the archives. Because Wikipedia is hosting that infringing material, and they don't qualify as a common carrier (the standard in US law for exemption), the infringed party could still tie up a lot of time and money. So we RevDel. The only loss is the rare listing of specifics of the edit someone is credited for, which isn't required for attribution under the current license. So no, it does not throw out the window the idea that it could cost the Foundation/Legal time, money, effort, hassle. Dennis Brown - 15:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • So we're going to gear all our practices towards the eventuality that someone may one day spot one paragraph from their website in an old revision on Wikipedia and then instead of asking nicely or sending a takedown notice would go straight for a court case that they know they won't win? If this is indeed the case, then I would really like to see that spelt out by the legal team, because there's nothing either in our policies or the documentation presented so far to suggest that revision deletions like the one Himachal Pradesh are necessary.
          All this matters because the losses from such deletions are not as insignificant as they're made out to be. It's not about satisfying the legal requirement for attribution, that's a red herring (though yes, even here it would be nice, for example to be able to re-use content by citing only the actual contributors rather than be forced to enumerate everyone, including all the vandals, who has touched the page). It is about our ability to look after articles. Revision deletions erase the link between the edit, the user who made the edit, and the explanation for that edit. This makes it a range of editing activities more difficult, like selecting which parts of an article are likely to require attention, or cleaning up after disruptive users (including copyright violators!), and it makes it more likely for errors corrected in an intervening edit to get repeated.
          The sort of basic accountability that revdel erases is essential for dealing with any moderately developed article, and I don't think it's reasonable for the community to be actively taking that away from itself because of a hypothetical danger than no-one legally competent enough to comment has claimed to exist. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
          • This feels like FUD more than anything. Every issue listed (which I mostly disagree with, but don't want to waste more space arguing them) applies to every form of redaction; should we stop hiding BLP issues per RD2 because it will make cleaning up after disruptive users more difficult? Should we stop hiding disruptive links per RD3 because selecting which parts of an article are likely to require attention will be somehow harder?
            None of the arguments you've just made have to do specifically with RD1/copyright revisions (in fact, you're specifically avoiding that issue), and since regardless of whether someone will sue us for it, we should take preventative steps to avoid it, you should either expand your concerns to all of Revision Deletion or bring copyright-specific concerns with the use of it. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
            • I was simply pointing out some of the benefits of having article histories (which seemed to be dismissed by the previous comment). The WMF Legal document itself acknowledges them. Primefac, I don't understand your demands here. I came here to challenge an RD1 deletion that was a stark violation of our policies; it would have been equally unacceptable if that deletion had been done under any other non-oversightable revdel criterion (and this is already covered by the policy). People were endorsing the deletion because of an understanding that otherwise we risk getting into legal trouble, but no credible indication has been given that this is the case. I'm not buying the principle that we should go out of our way to avoid all conceivable vexatious lawsuits. If we did that, then our articles would never contain criticism of public figures because of the risk the article subjects could take us to court for libel. – Uanfala (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
              • That is the problem. You still call it "RD1 deletion that was a stark violation of our policies" when in fact others have demonstrated it was not a violation of policy. You raised the question, you didn't like the answer you received, you keep bludgeoning the issue. Dennis Brown - 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Uanfala The other thing you're missing here is that you, actually, are a downstream reuser of an unauthorized copy of some third party's work. Granted, you didn't modify the text in question, but the introduction of the copyvio content in the article turned it into an unauthorized derivative work. Every edit after the introduction of the copyvio is a fruit of a poisoned tree. Sure, we can all reason all day long that no reasonable owner, or judge, would ever treat the rest of the article as any material component to a copyright infringement case. Except there's precedent out there, for instance from the music industry. Part of any defense the WMF would have to mount if any copyright infringement case were to go to a court is that both the WMF but also the volunteer editors took all reasonable measures to address issues we are made aware of. RD1 is one of an arsenal of many small scale reasonable measure that we can point to to demonstrate that we take such issues seriously. And if that comes at the cost of someone not being able to see exactly what you did to the article by pruning the language section, I'm sorry, but that's a very small price to pay for everyone's benefit, including your own. And even if you don't care for it, you are not alone being shielded by these RD1s. All of Wikipedia is. MLauba (Talk) 22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have an interesting perspective on this because I consult on copyright infringement cases. Wikipedia is much more thoughtful than most websites and it would be a bad business decision for a lawyer to go after a non-profit that makes an occasional good faith error. We should not spend so much angst speculating about the law, because we're not lawyers for WMF. WMF legal will let us know if they are getting takedown notices or if they sense a problem. If we need to change our process, WMF legal will give us advice. I move to close this thread. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes (again)[edit]

Unfortunately, it is time for admin attention to Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes again. The Request for Comments on the structure of the article expired a little more than 36 hours ago, after running for 30 days. The RFC needs closure. A panel of closers is probably in order again. The RFC is

I know that there already is some admin attention to the article, because a user was blocked within the past 24 hours at Arbitration Enforcement for a personal attack and a 1RR violation. There is a tagging dispute, and most tagging disputes are stupid, because the objective should be to improve the article. To be sure, improving the article needs to be done as decided by the RFC. The tagging dispute seems to have degenerated into a dispute over the date to put on the tag. Maybe closing the RFC will solve the problem, or give the quarrelsome editors something different to quarrel about. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Robert's call for some admin attention to the page, and also that possibly the most helpful thing admins can do to quiet the page is to close the RFC. TIA, Levivich 02:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I actually don't see a need for a panel here, as the RfC's framing does not appear to have caught the media limelight the way that the AfD did. signed, Rosguill talk 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I've already (several hours ago) put in a RFC closure request. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The AFD was a special case because, as User:Rosguill says, it caught the media limelight, and was brigaded, by editors and one-time users who thought that the question was whether there had been mass killings under communism. We all agreed that there had been, and that the question was how to write them up. The reason I was proposing a panel for the RFC is to reduce the likelihood of the close being appealed back here. So the question is whether there is a likelihood that editors will appeal from the close. On the other hand, it is likely that some editors will simply ignore the close. If so, some of us know where Arbitration Enforcement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • {{doing}} Wug·a·po·des 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    And so the {{closing}} tag was applied, and editors prepared their ritual sacrifices to Janus, God of Openings and Closings, that he may bless the closer with Wisdom, and bring a time of Peace, with neither editor-, nor editing-, nor edit-conflicts. Levivich 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
     Done, happy January, though the legendary older roman calendar actually started with what we now know as March (hence the names september, october, november, and december). Janus can thank the Republic. Wug·a·po·des 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Julius and Augustus, arrogant enough to add eponymous months to the calendar. I shouldn't judge though: for a while, I was worried the Republic I live in was going to declare a new month called Trumptember. Levivich 03:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, let's not forget The Faces of Janus ;o) --Nug (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of a close-challenge[edit]

Can some kind admin close this thread? The consensus is clear and discussion has died. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Now archived. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Talysh people[edit]

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

Is it possible to semi-protect Talysh people? Anon IPs change sourced statistics to unsupported figures. This has been going on for quite a while. Maybe permanent semi would be good. Grandmaster 10:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Best place to request that is WP:RFPP. Indef semi is extremely rare as a first corrective action. More likely, you'll get a few temporary semis before an administrator seriously considers a request for a permanent one. AlexEng(TALK) 11:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromised account[edit]

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

I've blocked OscarWongLara1999 as an apparently compromised account. There are a bunch of page moves involved, which is my weak spot admin-wise, so any help in reviewing the edits and fixing the disruptive moves would be appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they have a history of this type of behaviour and were blocked by Liz previously for page move vandalism. Regardless, clean up still needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick block. I'm not so sure the account is compromised, or if it is, it has been since at least September of last year, when the user was making similar vandalistic edits to other users' pages. Firefangledfeathers 21:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Page moves and deletions handled. Thank you for catching this Ponyo! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Back to our regularly scheduled programming...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tips and help[edit]

Hello. Please have one of the moderators review this article. I created this article but another user uploaded it and the fate of the article is unknown at this time. Sincerely.Musiban (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the concern was with Draft:Shahin Farhat, which was copied from the mentioned draft without attribution. I have redirected that draft to the original linked by the OP, which I believe should sort everything out since AN is not a place to actually request draft reviews. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not copy this article from anywhere. I created it using the article in Persian Wikipedia and its sources.If this is not the right place, please help determine the fate of the article. Thank You.Musiban (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Please re-read my statement; I never accused you of anything improper. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is strange. Draft:Shahin Farhat was created by User:Rasooool on 4 July 2021‎. On 22 September 2021‎, the OP created Draft:Shahin farhat. Then, the next day, User:Dan arndt declined Draft:Shahin farhat & copy/pasted it overwriting Draft:Shahin Farhat. What is the protocol for one user creating a draft with different capitalization of a draft that already exists? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Review what's there. In this case, the decline on the OP's draft was invalid because Draft:Shahin Farhat was not submitted. Now that the OP's draft have been resubmitted it's a bit of a moot point though.
In general, users are allowed to create duplicate drafts, though if that sort of thing is discovered we do try to point the authors to the other draft(s) so they can work together. If there are duplicate submitted drafts, then the reviewer should (in theory) review the better draft and decline the "lesser" draft(s) as duplicates. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP proposal regarding NSPORT that would potentially affect AfD closes[edit]

A Village Pump proposal — regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must also demonstrate SIGCOV in secondary independent RS when challenged at AfD — may be of interest here for its potential effect on close decisions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The impact on AFD results is not just 'potential'. The purpose of the RFC is to change AFD closes. Thats the whole point. But thanks for the alert.McClenon mobile (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Question of admin actions on a specific page[edit]

Hi all,

This is no slight against the admin who initially responded to the situation---I believe they act in good faith.

A subsection of of the Sandy Stimpson page about a politician referring to local articles as first-hand sources was declared to be breaking the rules by an administrator and I'd like a follow up on it. While this is a politician, and necessarily will be subject to a variety of viewpoints, I attempted to continue the inclusion of a section which described acts caused by their son. The following rule was invoked: WP:ONUS.

Specifically, I'm asking if this rule applies in this particular case. I personally believe that the politician's reaction and relation to events was covered by this rule. Recently I've recognized that thsi rule does not apply to this article given the present wording. I may be interpreting this wrong, in which case I'd hope this rule was updated to be more specific. A person publicly reacting to events (in that public citations exist and are relevant) should be included in Wikipedia articles. I want to make sure myself and others are able to easily follow this rule moving forward.

Thanks so much for considering this! Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring it up---it's what I found that made sense, and let me know if it should be posted elsewhere!

--Marx01 Tell me about it

This appears to concern Talk:Sandy Stimpson#Wrt Stimpson's son's arrest from October 2020. The edit was diff which was added then removed by Marx01. It's easy to use Wikipedia articles to pile-up muck concerning a living person (see WP:ADAM) but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. In particular, an article about a person is not available to coatrack negativity about family members. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Marx01: I also see two edits from last year you made to the article that were reverted by User:Neutrality who you should have notified. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Marx01:We can't tell what or who you are talking about. Please provide diffs, and you are required to notify the editor in question. You have not touched the article in five months, so we are really guessing here. If this is about the 2020 attempt to mention the subject's son's legal problems, I agree with its removal. Meters (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why, yes. If this is the edit in question, I should have been notified of this discussion. I removed negative BLP about a third party that had no bearing on the content of the article. There was no indication of it's relevance beyond the personal relationship involved. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses! Apologies for the confusion; I haven't gone through this process before and missed that I should have notified the editor in question, though reflecting that makes complete sense. I was mainly bringing this up after thinking about it again for the first time in quite a while, I've left the article alone as a result of worrying about this rule. I think this clears up my concern, though I'm still a little confused about the line drawn by this rule. --Marx01 Tell me about it 20:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please can you block my IP address indefinetley[edit]

Block my ip indefinitely please (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Sorry, we don't do usually that. There may be other users using that IP while logged in, we don't know. Dennis Brown - 11:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Kind of tired of seeing my own signature on everything. If any admin have some spare time, it would be good to see new faces over there. Not overloaded, but still. Dennis Brown - 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)