Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317

An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A month ago I closed an ANI thread which was a mixture of behavioral concerns and content concerns. That thread reached no consensus of sanctions against any editor but did arrive at a strong consensus for how to handle the content dispute - by conducting a formal Request for Comment (RFC). Basically by default I have found myself as an uninvolved sysop attempting to see through the ANI consensus and mediate a way towards an RfC. We are at a moment where additional editor attention would be helpful and in some cases essential to this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS RfC

• The discussion has been voluminous despite only a half dozen or so editors, including myself, participating. (Fun fact, with a hat tip to EdJohnston, but the discussion is longer than AN and ANI combined). I should have worked harder to limit this output from all participants (including myself).
• Most editors who have been participating in the process have gravitated towards this RfC question (option 1) and format with the belief that only minor changes are necessary before launching. Tryptofish feels that the other RfC format will not be successful and has offered an alternative (option 2) which so far has not garnered any support from participating editors. If you wish to comment about either RfC and/or the potential launch of Option 1 here is probably the best place to go.
• Note there is an ongoing RfC

According to the ANI close this should be done by an uninvolved sysop. While I remain uninvolved someone with fresh eyes agreeing that the RfC is neutral would be for the best, in my opinion and so I am looking for that uninvolved sysop. Additionally, I would love to line-up an experienced and capable editor (or panel of 3) and who would be willing to act as closer(s) at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can act as a closer (or be a member of the panel). I am totally uninvolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, got unexpected real-life emergency issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there no chance the differences between Tryptofish and others can be resolved without a lot more participation? Might an approach where Tryptofish highlights one part of the proposal and explains how they would change it and why, and the participants discuss this and try to come to an understanding work? Or has this been tried and didn't work or is not possible since Tryptofish feels the nature of their concerns mean they can only be understood by changing the whole RfC? In any case, Doc James seems to be one of the biggest proponents of one "side" and Colin and to some extent SandyGeorgia the other. Are they at least all on board with the current proposed RfC? This doesn't guarantee the RfC will work or product a clear outcome and I'm no means suggesting other's views aren't also very important, but it would I think reduce concerns that the RfC may have ended up one-sided. P.S. Other participants highlighting a part of Tryptofish's RfC proposal and how they will change it an why is another possibility but since it sounds like there is significantly more support for option 1, it makes more sense in the other direction IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the differing proposals, I understand why what I suggested probably isn't going to work as it is indeed a difference in how the RfC should be approached that affects the whole RfC so I've struck that suggestion. IMO "option 1" doesn't preclude something like Tryptofish's proposal in the future. I already sort of said this yesterday but IMO if most editors feel a more open ended approach is preferred, it may be better to let them try provided they understand that sometimes it just means limited participation and also no clear outcome, and there is probably no way to word an RfC to prevent that. And so it's possible this RfC will provide little help in drafting the 2nd RfC and in addition, the 2nd RfC may also have depressed participation. And in the mean time, the issues will be unresolved and likewise any concern they have over articles, as the moratorium/embargo may remain if there's no clear direction of the community. Of course it is also possible there will be a clear result from the first RfC maybe not even requiring a second 2nd RfC or at least convincing everyone of the right course of action for articles before it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first RFC is laughably POV. I find very little chance that it will be NPOV before it is launched. Trypto was only being fair when they explained that it will probably end in failure due to this POV, for which they were threatened with interventions. When Barkeep talks of most editors they are mostly talking about the ones who have not been bludgeoned out of the discussion, which are two on one of side of the argument and another paid to be on Wikipedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't share your view that the first RfC is biased towards a specific point of view. In fact, I think it may be trying too hard to just present examples without going through the pros and cons of how the data is presented. I suspect most people who aren't highly familiar with the competing concerns will just take a cursory look at the text and give a gut-feel reaction, which won't help move the discussion forward.

On a more general note regarding multi-phase discussions: the sticking point for many Wikipedia decision-making discussions is maintaining engagement from a broad set of editors in order to establish a true broad consensus view. There are a few issues that have addressed through multiple phases of discussion, such as pending changes (for example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012) and the request for administrative privileges process (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform). Even with these highly popular topics, the degree of involvement by the community diminished as the phases went by. For topics with fewer interested parties, it can be a challenge to ensure there is enough input at the end to determine an unassailable result. The benefits of expediency need to be weighed against the advantages of gaining more information to better shape discussion.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to have a workshop phase to collect data and work through ideas, refining them further. Establishing a consensus view requires patience. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl, you're correct that I'm going a bit out of my way to make the question feel neutral, even though the two sides aren't really equal in the type or strength of their arguments. Also, on some points, there just aren't two sides. For example, the price given in the first example is mathematically incorrect. Despite the recent request from User:AlmostFrancis to hear the other side, ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal the price in the first example. There is no other side here: everyone already agrees that it's impossible to multiply three numbers together and end up with a prime number. That said, I don't really want people to go into the RFC looking at trivial points like the occasional typo in a price, or with nothing but vague enthusiasm for Doing Something, without helping us figure out what can and should be done. I want editors to think about the important points: What claims do we think this database can support? We need to re-check all of this anyway (see: typos), and we might as well make any other recommended changes at the same time. I'm thinking that we need to invite the data geeks and stats folks to this phase, so we can talk about what is realistically possible with this database.

But to do that, we need to actually get the RFC open, and ANI said that we need an uninvolved admin to opine that it's neutral enough before we can start an RFC. If any admin would please look at it and express an opinion (either way!), that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I didn't use "neutral", as that is tangential to my view. I think it would be helpful to actually go through a list of the advantages and concerns for each example, so potential commenters can be made aware of them up front. I strongly suspect that all key issues have already been identified and so as I see it, the goal is to gather viewpoints on how to best manage these considerations. I believe there will be more engagement with an explicit list of items to consider. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, and you aren't an admin, which ANI required for this bureaucratic step. We've been talking about it. The identified problems in those lists (not all of which apply to any given statement, of course) is lengthy, policy-focused, overwhelming, and damaging. And, yes, the group has identified valid problems, and everyone's already agreed that some of these truly are problems, but I think that the overall effect of listing all the problems at the top would be running down one side unfairly, because the "pro" side is pretty much left with little to say beyond apologizing for not magically having done a perfect job on the first try at an unexpectedly complex task. I don't think that will *feel* neutral, even if it technically is.

The problem with your suggestion in terms of what I want to learn is that if I post a list of identified problems, I won't find out what's right, or what could be done right, or which categories of problems seem most salient to editors. I'll just get a bunch of editors dumping drive-by vote on the page that say little more than "Me, too, because All True Editors are always opposed to all problems". What I need is editors saying, "Okay, maybe that first effort wasn't perfect, but this is complicated, and let's see how we can build on it. Do we need WP:INTEXT attribution for that database? I think you should try..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the pro side is just apologizing for flaws; there are reasons why people support certain ways of presenting the data, such as conciseness and use of (I know, hotly disputed behind the scenes) standard dosages. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they don't have advantages. I just think it's asking too much for commenters to replicate the analyses that have already been done to isolate key issues, rather than just getting them to grapple with the issues and work on ideas to deal with them. I agree that this is better discussed elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are good arguments for including information about money. (I've made them for years and years now.) There are no good arguments for reading a source that gives you the average unit price for a single country and writing on Wikipedia that the one country's price is the price throughout the entire developing world. Although that has happened in some articles, it did not happen because someone sat down one day and said, "You know what? The best thing for Wikipedia would be for me to take this single data point about 1% of the world's population, and claim that it's how things are for 80% of the world's population, because concision matters more than accuracy". These were not intentional choices. Nobody was trying to do that. Editors were just trying to do their best, with the limited resources they had at that particular moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral. Using one example as a basis for judging the entire group isn't neutral. The tone of the background is that something "serious must be done" which is not neutral. Of course you can multiply three numbers and get a prime number in fact every prime number has an infinite number of inverse pairs they can be multiplied by to make a prime number AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticing that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 is not "one sides original research". Everyone else has already agreed that is just plain incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And do the links you added only say ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 or do they have more text and research at them? Are you claiming the research wasn't done by one side of the debate? Are you claiming you are not using this research to implie the prices are broadly incorrect in the background text? Are you ever going to explain what prime numbers have to do with anything?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2,777 is the 404th prime number. If you multiply three numbers and end up with a prime, you should check your work. I cannot imagine why you would even bother trying to defend this error. Anyone with a calculator can discover that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=27.675}$. That's what should have been in the article, not $27.77, assuming you're going to use that database record with that method.

I don't know which links you're talking about, but I can tell you that multiple people, on at least three different pages, over the space of two months, have been begging for examples of high-quality, well-sourced drug prices in our articles, and nobody has been able to find a single example in any article about a small-molecule generic drug that held up under even a moderate amount of scrutiny. I wrote originally that many (N.B.: "many", not "all" or "most") of the examples in a specific list were "outdated or otherwise incorrect". Doc James changed the statement later, but I'm still comfortable with what I wrote. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing that all (or almost all) of the examples in that specific list are both up to date and also entirely accurate. Even providing a single really solid example of the ideal way to source and describe this type of content would be helpful. Nobody else has been able to do it yet, but you seem to be really confident that it can be done.

BTW, when you're talking about "sides", you really ought to count me on the pro-inclusion side. I've been encouraging the inclusion of a wide variety of financial content in medical articles for many years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually anyone with a calculator would know that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=2.7675}$ not 27.675. Also if you could tell me how ${\textstyle 5\times 10\times .1=5}$ is wrong I would appreciate it. Or are you saying that 5 is not a prime number? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If you're still looking to line up some help closing, I'd be willing to be part of a panel if you need me. I haven't participated in the previous RfC and don't have plans to participate in the upcoming one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, so far no one has raised their hand and I appreciate you doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem of logic: the ANI concluded that a) we needed an RFC on pricing, and b) we needed an admin to concur it was neutral before launch. In the course of looking for an example of an article with policy-compliant drug pricing (excluding NOTPRICE) that could be used in that RFC, separate problems were uncovered, such that no example was found, leading to this different RFC, to be followed by that RFC on pricing in general. We posted to the No Original Research noticeboard, and got not a single response about the concerns raised, hence we need to go to the community for feedback. We have a problem that has to be sorted by the community regardless of what we eventually do with that RFC on pricing. This RFC is not that RFC, and interpreting the ANI to read that we can not now or ever independently address a separate issue without meeting the "neutral admin" requirement is overly strict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct concerns around MOS:MED and WP:MED

In the last month I have witnessed sincere efforts by all involved to put the past aside and work together. Despite these efforts, what had been a fragile peace immediately following the ANI discussion has not held. Over the last 10 days or so there have been a steady number of behavioral concerns brought forward by a number of editors about any number of other editors. We're at a point where some sanctions are probably required and I have directed the two most recent people towards WP:Arbitration Enforcement. However, not all the misconduct is of the type that fits with the strengths of AE which is why an Arbitration Case has been mooted by multiple people. I write here in the hopes that can be avoided either through additional uninvolved sysops taking interest in the topic or through community discussion and consensus to resolve the conduct concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish for Wikipedia discussions to be friendly and objective. All sorts of editors, including newcomers, should feel welcome and invited at Wikipedia. There is a negative and antagonistic environment at WikiProject Medicine right now which I wish to reduce to eliminate. I want people to express themselves in a positive way and avoid expressing themselves in a negative way. There is no particular Wikipedia protocol for determining what is a good versus bad environment, but I wish we had one, and I wish that we could apply it. As a human I can identify words which are negative and hostile, and I can see when certain user accounts use those words more frequently, and it might be the case that some user accounts use hostile negative word choices very frequently in many conversations. I wish that such accounts could get guidance to be more objective and less emotional, because Wikipedia discussions ought to be on the basis of merit of the arguments and not on emotional rhetoric. I appreciate Barkeep49's mediation here, but the situation is growing. If we were all together in a physical workplace then the human resource department would bring in a social worker to provide emotional mediation at this point. We have no such equivalent in place in Wikipedia and I wish that we did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I have almost the opposite view. There's been a certain amount of bickering. That should have been expected, since this is a family fight. But I've found good information and good views, and I'd say that on average, the more "emotional" the editor, the more useful feedback they gave me.
    Also, my advice for improving Wikipedia's culture wouldn't involve telling people that the best way to communicate with humans is to be objective and unemotional (wow, what a culture-specific notion) or to think about individual words. If you are afraid that that there may be some significant math-and-statistics-type errors in a few hundred high-traffic articles, then "being positive" doesn't sound appropriate. Sure, there's no need for profanity (and there has been basically none of that), but good Wikipedia editors should ring the alarm bells when they think that hundreds of articles might have serious errors. "Word choice" isn't where the tension comes from here. Recognizing that a respected, experienced Wikipedian really does fundamentally disagree with you about what Wikipedia ought to be is where the tension comes from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that the tension is probably healthy all things considered. Has the conflict that's resulted from that tension always been healthy? I think the answer to that is no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WAID right again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed she is. As is so often the case, she is a breath of fresh air and sunshine around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Help us, uninvolved admin, you're our only hope!

Carrie Fisher would've been proud of that subsection heading. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: uninvolved administrators to assist with the MOS RfC discussed above in this thread. The lucky administrators who volunteer for this task will be rewarded in the following ways:

• Fame, fortune, and glory, beyond all human comprehension
• Your name whispered reverently for generations to come
• Temples built in your honor

Actually, you'll get none of these things. But, this is a content dispute that has the potential to affect many, many articles, and they're medical articles, which for obvious reasons are particularly important to get right for our readers, and it's a situation where the pressure resulting from the content dispute gridlock is generating conduct disputes between highly experienced veteran editors. One has already resigned (which everyone is hoping will be just a wikibreak). The foolish brave admin who closed the ANI thread that preceded this has been doing a stand-up job, but it's really unfair to put all this on one person's shoulders. Barkeep49's talk page is quite active, and in my opinion, they could use help from additional administrators, both for Barkeep's sake (so that they're not held singularly responsible for the outcome of this RfC, nor for "policing" it), and also for the sake of ensuring that the outcome is credible, broadly accepted, and not subject to future claims of an unfair process. This could really use a panel of admin if possible, but at least one more to help take some of the load off of Barkeep's shoulders. So if any admin could swing by Barkeep's talk page and ask how they can help, you'd be doing a huge service not just for your colleagues but also for our readers. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We asked for help 11 days ago, and we've still had zero responses from admins. Levivich is correct that the budget doesn't run to temples built in your honor, but the following barnstar is offered to any admin who resists the bystander effect, spends five minutes reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and tells us whether it sounds neutral to you. That's all you need to do: click it, read it, and post here.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what we'll do if no admin chooses to look at this. ANI said to find an admin before starting the RFC, but we can't make you volunteer to do it. Maybe just invoke WP:IAR, on the grounds that we've made multiple requests for review, and no admin has (yet) told us that it's not neutral? I'd really rather have someone look at it, though. Please be that person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could launch an RfC: "Is this RfC question neutral?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, My watchlist notice is showing that we have three admin candidates going through RfA right now with >90% support. How about asking each of them to be the panel? One almost-admin should be good enough to meet the spirit of the requirement; two or three would be even better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, we need two things:

1. Any single admin to spend five minutes reading the question and deciding whether it's a "neutral" question (i.e., not an obviously biased question; RFC standards for neutrality are lower than NPOV standards for Featured Articles). Biased questions are fairly rare in RFCs, but a couple of times a year, someone who is worried that his side is "losing" makes a big stink about the question. It usually amounts to "It must be biased, because otherwise everyone would agree with me!" I don't think that's a likely response from any of the experienced editors in this case, but I can respect the request as a gesture to ward off drama.
2. Some poor sucker(s) to read everything sometime during February, and to write a closing summary. This is a much bigger request. It is also not a request that I'm making, and unless the result is very simple and obvious, I'm not sure that I'd want to inflict on a new admin. I don't want them to quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin that has read the discussion in this section, both RfC proposals and skimmed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ready,_steady,_go, I think that some minor revisions to RfC 1 should make it unimpeachably neutral. I think that the "In the real world" and "What we've got on wiki" sections should be removed, and can be raised as actual arguments in the discussion. I don't think that the question statement at the beginning has any neutrality issues. I think that the listed examples of drug pricing are both useful and neutrally presented, but I could see how editors could object to potential cherrypicking of examples. Thus, I think that if editors object to the current selection of examples, we could use a random number generator to choose three new example drugs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Rosguill thanks for looking. I think that before any fact-based sections are removed, we need to consider if there is content in them that is contentious, biased or leading in a way that isn't neutral. I think the fact have had had a dispute over drug prices since October (and documented issues of prices being removed and restored for may years) that "Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems" is undeniably a fact, and why we are here. It would be wrong to suggest this RFC sprang out of nowhere or suppress that faults with prices have been found, or hide that nearly all prices are now five years old. I think the link to User:Colin/ExistingPrices hugely important (I have offered to move it to another namespace). It quickly helps editors see 530 drug prices in article text, without having to try to lookup some random drug and find the relevant text. It also helps avoid accusations of cherry picking examples, because editors are welcome to pick from others for discussion. A good reason for moving those sections into "argument in the discussion" might be that the text was biased or rationally disputed. A bad reason would be simply that one editor wants facts removed, because they don't help their case. We have at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Polishing the draft a request for editors involved to argue for adding or removing text from the draft and those who have in the past raised an issue have not responded. Perhaps someone could ping Doc James to request his involvement in arguing for final changes to the draft.

Wrt any objection over the examples chosen, I'm not aware any objection has been made, and they were carefully chosen to represent different issues that editors may want to discuss. I think randomly picking ones would be a bad idea and less likely to lead to three useful examples. For example, diazepam has many indications and doses and formulations from tablets to injections, whereas ethosuximide has one indication and usually taken by tablet. The unit of each three examples are different (per day, per month, per dose). One example gives a price range and the others do not (and they do not for different reasons). -- Colin°^Talk 09:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I don't dispute that it is a fact that editors have raised concerns with the drug prices, but I think it could be considered a leading question to highlight that for readers in the opening prompt. In my experience, RfCs rarely open with a nuanced background of the conflict, but rather cut straight to the chase (e.g. "Do you prefer A or B in section Q", "Should the following paragraph X be added to the lead"). As for User:Colin/ExistingPrices I agree that it is a very useful resource, but am concerned that due to your involvement in the debate, editors who disagree with your position in general may cry foul if the page is given what is essentially an endorsement from the RfC framing (as at least one already has). Finally, regarding the examples, if no one has objected then we don't need to do a random draw, I just wanted to leave that option out there in case I missed something from a relevant side-discussion.

As a side note regarding a comment made by WAID above, I'm not sure that RfC neutrality standards are comparable to NPOV in articles (featured or otherwise). An article needs to report the consensus of reliable sources with attention to due weight, whereas I think it's reasonable to expect an RfC to stake out a totally neutral ground between the disputing positions, regardless of the level of support a priori. Moreover, the prime concern in RfC framing is to avoid leading questions, which aren't really a thing that exists in an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for pitching in (and congrats on the tools). On the idea of needing other samples, some background might help. I have been asking for examples for six weeks, and none where drug price text appears to comply with policies other than NOT (meaning V, NOR, WEIGHT) have surfaced. Discussions are long, but you can see here and here (where one sample is off by at least a factor of two, and the next random sample thrown out was off by a factor of 100). So, I suggest we have good enough samples, and after six weeks, nothing else is likely to surface.

Another factor to be aware of is that about a dozen editors worked for a month through the holidays to put together an RFC, with a couple more editors appearing only in January.

I'd like to suggest, though, another area where Barkeep49 deserves more help. He has been the only admin trying to corral this mess, and has taken unnecessary heat and criticism, even after being a very fair moderator. He has had to ask several editors to walk back some comments here and there, and almost everyone has complied, yet having taken no extreme admin actions, he is nonetheless criticized unfairly, IMO. It would be most helpful if you, and other admins, would follow the discussions closely to pitch in as needed. I specifically suggest looking at this very moderate suggestion in relation to what is going on here, and whether there is any "poisoning of the well" occurring. Also, this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for your reply. I think the only objection possible to User:Colin/ExistingPrices is that it is in my userspace and hence I have some privilege over editing rights, and I'm happy to move it if that helps. One editor objected to it on the grounds that I created it, which imo is the very definition of a personal attack (contributor vs content). The actual content was not created by me and is simply an automated extraction of article text written, mostly by one other editor. I really do protect most strongly to censorship of existing drug prices on such objectional grounds. Let's agree whether the content of that page is a fair extraction of 500+ drug prices on articles, and leave aside who's name is on the history contrib list. Appeasing those who make personal attacks is not neutrality. I don't think we should place weight on attacks on the RFC have no content-based or rational justification.

Wrt whether the RFC should up-front note that some editors have raised concerns, there are pros and cons to both inclusion and suppression of this incontestable fact. To "cut to the chase" as it were, and hide the fact that there are problems with the text and sources, is biased towards mainly considering whether Wikipedia should (ideally) include drug prices, rather than whether Wikipedia can (practically) include drug prices. We've compromised an awful lot. Anyway, that's my 2p and it's WAID's RFC so I'm leaving it to them to agree to cuts or not. I think the current very very tame note that "some editors have raised concerns" is extremely watered down from what could be said. Like "Wikipedia's drug prices are essentially random numbers and the original research that invented them would make any high school statistics teacher faint with mortification". -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the formulation of the RfC is per ANI consensus really best done at WT:MEDMOS and so I will be posting my reply there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not an admin. Gave my two cents. Hope it helps. Buffs (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Um, Buffs, you entered a statement on an RFC that has not been launched. Perhaps you can remove it, and wait for the RFC to open? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok...Here's what I wrote. Feel free to put it where it needs to go:

Well, you asked for an opinion, so here it goes...

The problem I see with this is WP:NOTPRICES. Neutral view or not, it cannot override policy.

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

Accordingly, I don't see a reason to override policy here. If we're going to include prices (which is an inherently political issue when it comes to medicine), it's just plain too unclear to be accurate. I can't see a single instance where such a quote wouldn't have to have an in-depth explanation. The only instance I can see its inclusion would be where the price was in the news for some reason (very high or very low). Moreover, per policy, it doesn't belong here. Without addressing this issue at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not, neutrally phrased or not, such a change to this guideline cannot override a policy. Anyway, you asked for an opinion.

(adding here) Moreover, the breadth of this RFC is immense and I don't think you'll be able to clearly establish a consensus based on discussion anyway. This level of bureaucracy is what's driving away editors. People want to add prices to articles on medicine. Fine. After LOTS of discussion, an admin simply needs to say yes or no and end this. An RfC for 2-3 more months is insane levels of bureaucracy. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The normal course of action (a post to the NOR noticeboard) received zero feedback. Admins are not empowered to determine content disputes any more than regular editors, so the only course left is an RFC on the text--> source integrity concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators have no special powers over content decisions. Consensus is at the heart of our project. I'm not willing to dispute your overall assessment of our bureaucracy though I've been puzzled how we pare it back down given that each additional piece of bureucracy had some reason for which it had broad community support before it was enacted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, my emergency so far is over, I can start looking at the ongoing RfC starting from Friday evening. Judging from the activity here, I will likely be the only closer.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has been launched. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

99.228.212.200

• 99.228.212.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Mwiner emailed my university. Their main goal has been to list the main action of venlafaxine as an opioid.

I have thus blocked this IP as a sock of Mwiner. Let me know if anyone has concerns. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to find them a new hobby.-- Deepfriedokra 17:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

2607:fea8:3ca0:3cd:247f:54cf:d553:4d05 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) May need a range block. Or simple protection of the page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Watch out y'all

That jerk from Kentucky is back. Expect hits with obscene material in celebrity articles, between +100 and 300 bytes, from various IPs. I don't know if there's been efforts at rangeblocking; they were doing the same thing yesterday (see Jennifer Love Hewitt and follow the various IPs). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Checking... and so far I think I can do something here. With respect to Kingboyk, 1 week is not anywhere near long enough with this IP's history of abuse. I will be reblocking and measuring in years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The following IPs are  Confirmed to each other, one person or two very closely connected people are performing the same vandalism from the same devices on these addresses, interspersed with WP:GHBH edits as obfuscation; no comment on possible connections to accounts:
  • 74.142.15.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.30.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.106.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.114.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.117.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.21.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.80.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.165.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.237.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Most have discrete blocks in their history already. There are a small number of unrelated contribs on both ranges, but they are also non-constructive. Partly due to the persistence and partly due to the severity of the vandalism I'm putting anonblocks on both ranges. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle now supports partial blocks

You should now be able to apply partial blocks using Twinkle! There's a simple checkbox, off by default, that toggles the "partial" status for blocks and templates. It has some fancy menus to let you select namespaces and/or enter specific titles to block users from. There is, as of now, only one template for partial blocks, {{uw-pblock}} (made by QEDK). Any and all feedback welcome — this is obviously in flux given the rapid deployment, lack of policy, etc. — feel free to ping me and/or post at WT:TW, I'll do what I can over the next few days. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All of you (and me) owe Amory some baklava. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• User:Doug Weller, FYI. You might need another excuse if you still want to avoid pblocks. :) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: lol. I'm not really avoiding them as I've made one and most of my recent blocks were for issues where a partial block wouldn't help, but it's nice to know there's something in Twinkle now!. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm avoiding them. Yet another pain to add to my butt. We add things that are not needed (in my view) and don't add things that are (CU-related stuff).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      • {{User:Ivanvector/Nopartial}} Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I didn't really follow the progress of the development of partial blocks(though I was aware it was coming). They way I see it, they seem more useful after an initial general block as a way to get someone unblocked who might have had issues in a particular area. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see a great many circumstances where one would start out with a partial block. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I can understand (though don't necessarily agree) opposition to partial blocks on a specific user. But one use I hope we can all get behind - including starting out with them - is to block a range of IPs from particular articles, when that range would have an unacceptably high level of collateral damage if simple sitewide range blocks were used. It's still theoretically collatreal damage, but it's much less damaging to prevent innocent users sharing an IP from editing 2 articles, than to prevent them editing 6 million. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense to me. Thanks for the insight. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer - Joseph2302

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) was blocked last June by Ponyo (talk · contribs) for vandalism. Normally this would be a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" block except Joseph has done a lot of good work for the project, and just occasionally goes completely off the rails. Six months later, he has decided to take the standard offer. The unblock request reads as follows:

I know that I had an unblock declined about a month ago, but I have also seen that requests for unblock under the standard offer are often debated at AN. Would it be possible to start a discussion there to gain community consensus on whether I can be unblocked? If rejected, I promise not to make any more unblock requests for 6 months.

I understand the reasons why I was blocked: I have had a repeated history of making occasional spurious edits, and this is completely unacceptable. At the time when I was last blocked, I was dealing with off-wiki issues which were affecting my ability to edit constructively on-wiki. I would be happy to discuss the details in private, but don't want my personal life on view for the whole world to see. This off-wiki issue is no longer an issue for me, and so I fully believe that if unblocked, I would be a positive editor on Wikipedia again. I completely understand that thousands of positive edits do not justify a number of bad edits, and if unblocked, I would expect it to me on a tight leach. As mentioned before, if I were unblocked, I would recommence editing in the areas that I have been doing before: sports, Women in Red, as well as some London historical articles. And I will not engage with vandalism activities. I would ask you to consider my appeal, as I believe that I can be a positive contributor to this encyclopedia again. My edit contributions show that I can be a positive impact, I have multiple GAs and FLs, which shows my commitment to the encyclopedia. In the last 5 years, I have greatly enjoyed contributing to this fantastic encyclopedia, and I just hope that I will be given that opportunity once again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Although I have never considered vandalising Wikipedia, I have been had similar off-wiki issues as Joseph, so I understand where he's coming from, though I don't consider it an excuse for his actions. I trust that Joseph feels the same, and therefore I am inclined to consider his standard offer request, with the strict stipulation that any further vandalism really will mean he has run out of rope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just as kind of a placeholder, I'd like to ask that this not be dismissed out of hand by block counting in the block log. I'm hoping to discuss a couple of things with Joseph, either on his talk page or by email, after which I might suggest some unblock conditions. I don't think he should just simply be unblocked, but I do think it would be possible to work on some conditions that might help. In general, I echo Ritchie's thoughts that (a) Joseph has done good work, and (b) the 7 previous blocks are a pattern that can't continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unblock. While the block log is long, the actual disruption associated with each instance is actually pretty minimal. After a brief offline discussion, I believe his assurances that the real life situation has changed, and his other significant content work shows that he is not here for the wrong reasons. I was going to suggest an alternative to "this is the very last chance", but reading below, I doubt that would gain consensus, so I'll stick to the "unblock, very last chance" consensus that seems to be forming. Self-requested blocks would be a good idea in the future, because WP can be a pretty unforgiving place, and I very much doubt another actual block would be undone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well, obviously ^^^these discussions are important. But, yeah: it has been clear for some time that Joseph2302 has had occasional issues that come out of no-where and disappear as quickly. Of course, by then the damage has been done and the block-log lengthens. But for example, one minute he's trolling The Rambling Man, next they're working together on content. And these occurrences were sufficiently rare that—assuming that the cause(s) of these aberrations are now off the table, as J2302 says—his return should be a case of sliding into the water as opposed to a dive bomb that soaks everybody. Cheers, ——SN54129 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question Joseph2302 has repeatedly promised to cease disruptive editing, and has repeatedly broken that promise. I asked back in December 2019 what was different this time. I don't need to know the specifics. If they were mental health issues, those can be challenging. If they were personal life issues, those can be challenging. My point is, Joseph has repeatedly promised this was it, he's done with disruptive edits, only to break the promise. What's different this time? This user has been given numerous previous opportunities and thrown them away. What's different this time? I can imagine a number of good reasons why this time is different, but really, Joseph needs to tell us what's different. He's an editor who makes constructive contributions and would be valuable for the project, but not at the cost of the punctuated significant disruption. I hope to see him back, I hope to see a good answer here. --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, it's my interpretation of WP:BLOCKDETERRENT - to prevent imminent damage to the project and stop continuous and regular damage. Joseph is an unusual case in that he is only disruptive for very short periods of time, and (AFAIK) has always demonstrated remorse afterwards. Therefore, I would look for a sanction that allows Joseph continue his content contributions while minimising any damage caused by whatever trigger points get thrown up - short, time limited blocks. I've seen this happen on a forum elsewhere on the internet, where one guy actually asks to be blocked for 48 hours to rescue himself from doing something he'd regret. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd be far, far more comfortable if Joseph could ask to be blocked, rather than disrupting. I can imagine this may not be possible. I'd be quite happy endorsing an unblock if this was a viable path forward; self-requested blocks don't really cost anything. But, I weakly oppose unblocking if we are going to have to clean up multiple further instances of disruption. --Yamla (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the last block, the "clean up" amounted to a revert 37 minutes' later. While that shouldn't have been necessary, full stop, calling it "multiple further instances of disruption" is a little misleading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think he says all the right things in his unblock request, his prior work has been a net positive, and I'm willing to extend a length of WP:ROPE to him. I endorse unblocking him at this time. We can always block him again later. --Jayron32 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I remember when Joseph was indef'd, and it came as quite a surprise (in that it was needed). He's done a lot of great work on cricket-related articles, a subject area I'm very passionate about myself, and would like to see him return. He's def. a net positive, and the threat of WP:ROPE is always there if it all goes wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think Joseph knows this will be his very last chance and while I have indeed been on the receiving end of some of his more erratic edits in the past, I'm keen to allow one best and final offer – no more chances. Don't let us down. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock + block requests are fine - the sheer list is a massive concern, but I feel the risk/reward set-up is such that I'm tempted to go with more rope. Quite a few admins are happy to grant requests for self-blocking, if he's concerned he might cause problems, requesting a 48hr block from a couple of online admins seems a possible step. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We could sqaure the circle with this and just make him an admin, that way he could block himself. Save bothering other people. ——SN54129 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Look at that block log. Personal attacks and harassment, violations of the BLP policy, and they've even had their talk page access revoked on multiple occasions. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - he has already violated conditions of past unblocks so many times that it's hard to see this as anything but trying to play us for fools. His block log and examples of past incidents give the impression he can't help himself, and so it's only a matter of time before he disrupts again, on purpose and with intent, because he thinks it's funny. It's not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- based on that block history it'll be about a month or two before he starts acting like a vandalous jerk again. I don't think unblocking would be a good idea. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing to support- although I still think it won't be long before he starts acting up again I've been persuaded there'll be no actual lasting harm. And on the off chance I'm wrong, we get a productive editor back. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions (including block requests). Miniapolis 23:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock User has a lot of beneficial contributions, give him another chance, it is not like he will do massive damage or be hard to reblock if he steps out of line again. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. An editor with that many blocks for serious misconduct is unlikely to change their ways. Sandstein 18:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. An editor Wikipedia can do without. Seems like madness to have him back. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. This is actually a no-lose situation. Joseph2302 has done good work on the encyclopedia in the past, and this time there won't need to be any waste-of-time discussions if he even steps slightly out of line - he'll just be indeffed again. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've been to-ing and fro-ing over this for some time, In short as mentioned above (and not to speculate) but mental health could very well play a part here and although not a reason to Support it sort of plays a part in my support, Their block log is atrocious however given they've made excellent contributions in the past I sort of feel they should be given another shot but it should go without saying this would obviously be their only and final chance regardless of any cause, Support as a final chance and any repeats would lead to an immediate indef. –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking to give them the benefit of the doubt. If the previous behavior resumes (which I don't hope) they'd surely be reblocked in no time and likely for the last time. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I counted 17 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to whoever helps out with it! Clovermoss (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with a few (feedback is welcome!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned out now, thanks @Ritchie333 and Ymblanter:! --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

racistic deletion in Blond

as for me as for an Asian, these changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&type=revision&diff=925821361&oldid=925815623 seems to be racistic (Idot (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

How can you tell there were racist facets to the removal? El_C 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

this racist deleted and illustrated referenced information that proves the fact that some Asian ethnic groups could have blond hair at child hood. I'm a Kazakh, and my my mother when she was a little girl use to have blond hair, that become black when she grow up, the same I have some seen for my cousin who is Kazakh too. so this deletion vandalism is really offensive and leads of racial stereotypes (Idot (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Idot, you repeated a conclusory allegation without providing evidence. This is a content dispute, not an admin matter - unless you continue calling people racists without credible evidence, in which case you'll likely be shown the door. Guy (help!) 10:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

what evidence I have to show? (Idot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Howdy hello Idot! In terms of evidence, we usually request several edits that show a pattern, or a convincing explanation of a single edit (which has not been provided). It seems that the editor in question (who I note you did not notify of this discussion despite the big red box at the top of the page) had a legit reason to undo the change. Was it based on racist sentiments? Or was it merely lack of sources? I would suggest discussing it with an editor before making an accusation of racism. A quick note here: on Wikipedia we assume good faith. If you assume that the edits were made with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, you might realize why the edits were made. What I see here is a dispute over content, that needs discussion. Also, making a claim based on personal experience, while perhaps enlightening, can't be used as a source as that is original research. In this dispute, please find some reliable sources that backup whatever claim you're making. TLDR: AN is not the first place to run when there is trouble (unless its very serious). Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

how about vandalism? it was written:
Today, higher frequencies of light hair in Asia are prevalent among Pamiris, Kalash, Nuristani and Uyghur ethnic groups.< ref >{ { cite book
Hunan201p has changed it to
It has been said that blond hair is observed in approximately 10% of Iranian Pamiris.< ref >{ { cite book
do you see the difference?
Hunan201p - removed ethnic groups (Idot (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, but it sounds like content dispute, which you should manage on the article talk page — and do so without casting aspersions on the nature and/or motivation of your opponents in this dispute. El_C 02:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

sitelogo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We were not hacked, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#6,000,000th_article. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish it wasn't red. I feel like I'm constantly getting notices :/ 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It will only be up for 2-3 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So right about when most regulars will likely have grown accustomed to the vibrancy. Leave the workers wanting more, they'll proudly belt out the next million that much sooner, eh? It's diabolical and simple, but I like it, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Money emoji: You won't have to worry. Once we hit lucky seven mill, we'll do green. ミラP 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rmharman redirecting his user and talk page to User:Auros

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed a weird case while on my usual new page patrol beat. User:Rmharman has completely taken over another account and redirects his user and talk page to that account. He even links User:Auros in his signature. I removed the redirect and tried to message him on talkpage but he reverted the edits with the edit summary "Changed username, associated with a legal name change". Razer(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They're both the same person, me. Rmharman is older, I had switched to using Auros as the nickname took over my life (and eventually became my legal name), and recently I started making some contributions again but forgot I had converted the account, and the old user/pass was what I'd had stored in 1Password so it auto logged that in. Ideally what I'd like to do is entirely purge the old Rmharman identity and redirect any references / contribs to the new name. This is me. The nickname originated in college, gradually became what everyone calls me in real life, and I legally changed my name in 2017. --Auros (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Auros, I understand you point but using two accounts simultaneously is against wiki policies, Please see WP:MULTIPLE. Your editing patterns are frankly too confusing to follow. Just a example - I posted a edit notice on Rmharman talk page. You cut and pasted it to User talk:Auros and then you replied using the User:Rmharman account but signed it with "User:Auros" 2. Then you made another reply this time with the "Auros" account. Razer(talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, You participated in the AFD discussion of "Josh Becker (politician)" and made a comment using your Rmharman account but signed it with "Auros" [1] at the same time you have been editing the article with both Rmharman and Auros account 2 .I would also like to point out that I dont appreciate you editing the content of my replies . Razer(talk) 16:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rmharman could ask for a self-requested block of their account. This would remove the chance of making accidental edits using the old account but would carry no stigma. They would employ the User:Auros account for any future edits. Links from the old user pages to the new ones could stay in place. Unless this is done, continuing to edit with two accounts is against policy and will probably lead to indignant responses. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the settings in 1Pass, to avoid accidentally logging in the old account again, and edited the old User and User_talk pages to just be text indications of where to look, rather than redirects -- though honestly, I don't see what the harm would be in using the redirect. Suggestion: it would be useful if there were a link right next to the username, in Special:Preferences, that would take a user to WP:CHU (which EdJohnston kindly directed me to). Razer2115, regarding editing your replies, the version of your comment that I replied to is what you originally posted. It looks to me like most likely what happened is that I began composing my reply to that, then you edited your comment, then I posted my reply, and that inadvertently reverted your comment to its previous version. Perhaps you could consider the spirit of WP:AGF. I actually appreciated your original shift of my article on a local politician into the Draft space, which I had not been previously aware of (although now other users seem to be pushing the article back in the other direction). My understanding of Wikipedia as a project is that it should be possible for a user to dip in and out of contributing over time, without becoming an expert on administrative processes. The important thing is to provide factual information that meets basic principles (NPOV, good citations, and so on). The "long tail" of contributions from a very large number of infrequent users is valuable. Acting hostile toward folks, just because they haven't mastered intricacies of procedure, is harmful to the enterprise as a whole. --Auros (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting to say something on the talk page of an article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lovely plumage-- Deepfriedokra

Sock-it-to-me-- Deepfriedokra

Dear Wikipedia administrators, Please visit the Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider, whether the article Ahmed Rajib Haider should be redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh or not, please consider; I have added some important excerpts from that article to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, you can see. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

1. This does not belong on AN
2. The user is misinterpreting the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider. He attempted to speedy Ahmed Rajib Haider and now is attempting to redirect the entire without a talk page discussion.
3. The user was created today, after the AFD was closed as keep. Meters (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And now the OP has opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (2nd nomination) just hourt after the first AFD closed as Keep, but is arguing to Keep the article. Meters (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I closed the AfD and left the user a note about discussing on the article talk page.-- Deepfriedokra 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting all other administrators to see the talk page (Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider), Deepfriedokra please participate in the discussion of the talk page. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you really want all the admins weighing in on this? This looks a lot like an example of WP:SPIDER. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, I am sorry, not all admins but some. Walter Saphron (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Walter Saphron is a sock.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canadian open proxies

About the report linked in the title that goes back to last week, I'm reporting this new situation. A user registered a new account this morning, and 4 minuts later he used it to restore one of the edits made by the anonymous proxy-user. Here it is:

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

The fact he hasn't done any other edit made me think that he may be the same individual, the vandal who used to hide behind open proxies last week is now try hiding behind a throwaway username to deceive and mislead other users. A CU request can't be requested for this case because checkusers can't link accounts and IPs and because the IP of the open proxy has already been blocked so he can't be using it, but perhaps a checkuser might check the logs of the username and control if the IPs he used are from open proxies in order to block them, and besided this there should be behavioural evidence that the anonymous and the registered users are the same individual. Please use in the best way the information I've provided. --151.21.73.20 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Normally this sort of request is made by opening a sockpuppet investigation and setting the checkuser request flag. No matter, I've blocked the account as an obvious sock of the open-proxy-abusing user. I did not check the account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

Overlapping new proposed merges/moves/splits of Death of Kobe Bryant

There are a lot of editor eyes already on this, but could some uninvolved admins keep an eye on this?

While a very active discussion for a proposed merge was underway (still ongoing and very active as of posting), a proposed move was opened for the article about 15 minutes later (with 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash one of the proposed targets) while that merge discussion was ongoing and later speedily closed.

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash which was later fully protected by Zzyzx11 as a redirect due to edit warring and the already ongoing merge discussion.

Now there is a new proposal to split the article to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash just a few hours later, while the merge discussion is still ongoing. The centralized merge discussion includes plenty of debate about renaming the article and/or partial merges elsewhere. Surely the concurrent overlapping discussions are unnecessary? — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• We are under no obligation to actually close discussions until at least a few days have passed, by which time many discussions that are basically editorial disputes will settle themselves. BD2412 T 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly yes, there is no rush to close until a reasonable time has elapsed. My concern is that there are multiple concurrent overlapping ones, partially over a target that was fully protected over edit warring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I was requested to open a discussion on splitting, I've would have waited as I am also concerned that editors might think these are two of the same discussions. They are in fact completely different. The original discussion was about merge Death of Kobe Bryant to Kobe Bryant, that discussion divulged into something completely different and is now apparently focused on renaming the article. It appears the merge discussion is now also about splitting. It quite confusing now. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Now there is a third concurrent requested move. This is getting a little ridiculous. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Only just noticed that the proposed merge was closed before the move request was opened. Ignore the above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate article

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash...

No!!!! It was not!!! I wrote the article from scratch, unaware of the existence of the Death of Kobe Bryant article. If anything, material from the article I wrote was copied verbatim into the death article. Not that you'd know from the talk page, as there is no attribution. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Apologies then. But the two articles were identical regardless (I suppose because of the common sources). See the first revision of "2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash" and the revision of "Death of Kobe Bryant" at the same time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (oldid fixed 06:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

@MarkH21: I'm not seeing any similarity between the two at the time. That link to the aircrash article was actually the second edit, which added the helicopter image to the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I matched the time stamps correctly but copied the wrong oldid. The two articles have almost identical content, from the course of events described to the passengers and helicopter being a Sikorsky S-76. There are just minor wording differences. The two articles clearly are covering the same event with the same details based on the same sources. The only real difference are the times given, the firefighting detail, and the then-unreferenced registration number + operator — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I still say that there is no great similarity between the two. The article I created had a good structure and was moderately well categorised. Aircraft registration and operator were unreferenced at the time as I was working from this entry at the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase. I was trying to find better sources for that information when other editors came in and trashed the article with malformed redirects, undiscussed redirects etc and I was also getting multiple edit conflicts. The ASN Wikibase is considered by some as unreliable, as opposed to the ASN maid database. I consider it is usable if necessary, as content placed there is vetted by an editorial team, but prefer to find other sources if possible. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, maybe you don't see it, but the two articles were about the same event, described the same details, and used the same sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

At the time in question, the article I created had three sources, an the death article had two. Only one source was common to both articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's extremely common that there is parallel article development when some highly notable event without an article happens. Most editors do their best to make sure they aren't creating a duplicate article, but it can be quite hard to find the existing article, especially if it's not linked from anywhere, so it's quite easy to accidentally create a parallel article. There does not seem to be any real consensus for having 2 articles on such highly related events, as I think most with experience here would expect. When things like this happen, there is no simple way to decide which one should be the main one. If one shows significantly more development, probably it's the better choice. But if both are similar, frankly it's a bit random. It can come down to which one is oldest, or which one has the better title or really just randomness based on what whoever first comes across the problem does. Frankly, the most important thing is not to choose the right target but to fix the problem quickly, to avoid further parallel development and confusing edit histories. Whatever article is chosen as the main one, assuming there is any content copied from the other one to the main one, attribution needs to be provided in accordance with the licence terms per WP:Copying within wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I completely agree. I didn’t mean to focus on the actual creation of the duplicate article, but point out the fact that we had a lot of duplication of discussions & articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

As usual, the root cause here is the attempt to document breaking news as it happens. That's not what we're supposed to do. Guy (help!) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTNEWS only applies when the news documented is insignificant enough as to receive no lasting coverage (per WP:LASTING). That is not the case here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's major news, we're still not a news outlet and we should not be trying to document breaking news as it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot stop the masses without some draconian changes. In cases like these it's best IMO to let the article get written by whosoever feels interested and then come back months later and clean the articles in question. People might still care about the nature of the death in 6 months, but it won't be a madhouse to try to enforce the changes (just the regular-old WP:ARS keep-bombing at AFD...). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We all know that the main page has a section called "In the news" at the upper right corner and the death of Kobe Bryant is now the lead item. WP:NOTNEWS lists four specific types of things that we ought to exclude and none of them apply to this helicopter crash that killed nine people, one very famous. For 19 years, Wikipedia has developed articles in real time about major events of long term notability, and that will not be stopped by invoking "NOTNEWS". The worst thing about that policy language is that it directs people to the failed Wikinews project. Look at the garbage article they are now hosting about Kobe Bryant's death. That crappy failed website should be shut down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No hate for Wikinews (rather unaware of its existence) but what Cullen328 says stands. Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later, I don't know what site other than Wikipedia should have documentation of real-life events that should definitely be documented (Encarta, anyone?). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later ... I very strongly believe the exact opposite is true. Historians are far more reliable than journalists. Levivich 17:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering how ABC News reported at first that all of Kobe Bryant's children were on the helicopter, I would agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence for your statement, historians are no more likely to be more reliable than journalists. As well as it possible to have historians that do their research and journalists who speculate, the reverse holds true as well. The big difference is that a journalist is more likely to be identified as wrong or speculating by their peers, and not historians, which is exactly how you now know that all of his children were not on the helicopter, but you have no way of knowing how accurate the research of your unknown historian is, especially since so less of them are out there to verify and crosscheck their research (and so much of their research is to try to know the unknown). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Tell us how you really feel Cullen, don't hold back :-)

Pointer to an ongoing related discussion at WP:VPP#A valid criticism ... Levivich 17:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The main page, yes - don't get me started on what's wrong with that enormous timesink. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

From experience, it is much easier to write articles about events as they happen, rather than weeks or months down the line. This is especially true when sources are all, or nearly all, online. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing articles would be much easier if we didn't have to bother with pesky sources at all, wouldn't it? But hey, that's not what we are here for. There are less available "sources" if we wait to write it because all that's left is the secondary sources we really need to write a proper article. News accounts of an unfolding event are primary sources. If all I had to write a biography were a bunch of primary sources, that subject wouldn't be notable. Why should we treat an event differently? John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that writing articles about events as they happen leads to a lot of terrible articles structured like "On X, Y thing happened" repeated ad nauseum. Later sources are often more comprehensive and better structured, and that leads to better articles. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on suggesting restraint and not trying to regurgitate 40KB of breaking news with no evidence of lasting impact, but you certainly don't make good articles out of that formula. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammarly article, and promotional editing

Recently an article about Grammarly has had a lot of promotional edits done to it, and the article itself is written like an advert, and 2 editors have constantly been edit warring (this thread is not about them, and please don't relate them to the article) may I get a warrant for deletion of the article, or instead get Extended Confirmed protection for the article? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding this link Grammarly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make it easier for those who might respond to this post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that justifies extended confirmed protection, and we cannot delete the page outside of the deletion process. The editors seem to be discussing the dispute on the talk page, and I would prefer to give the bold, revert, discuss cycle a chance before protecting the page. I've added it to my watchlist and if I notice things get worse I'll try to step in. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wugapodes! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Outage of wikipedia.org 26 Jan 2020

Service announcement

Wikipedia has announced in this tweet that there are been service outages across the xx.wikipedia.org domain, affecting multiple language versions. See also this informal reporting website, suggesting the problem has been ongoing since c.14:00 UTC today. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, the tweet doesn't mention North America but I can confirm there have been problems, as well as some reported to OTRS. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and Sphilbrick: I think the reason of the outage was because so many people were visiting Kobe Bryant, a high-profile figure, after his death. Any similar incidents before? ミラP 01:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Really? I didn't know we were that vulnerable. It'll be interesting to see the pageview stats tomorrow, then. I'd never actually heard of him until I reverted what I thought was a couple of uncited edits to a stadium suggesting it had the nickname 'the house that Kobe built' - then I learned who he was. (I cited a news source saying that one fan had called it that. Happy to be reverted if anyone knows it really is a genuine nickname!) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I'm trying not to get offtopic, but this RS confirms that nickname. ミラP 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: That was actually the source I cited as my rationale for reverting the edit! If you read the article, it says one fan used that phrase. Not a WP:RS in my view to support a nickname. But we are rather off topic here - sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This tweet by Katherine Maher confirms that it was a DDoS attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Huh - at Phabricator they say that it might have been an internal malfunction. I note that that Tweet by Katherine Maher is attached to a Tweetchain about a different incident last year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: a better Tweet is probably this one [2] although yes a comment from someone on the tech side would be far more conclusive. The Phabricator doesn't really provide much info. It links it to phab:T243548, and although it probably made sense to consider it possibly related, and no one seems to have ruled it out, I find it unlikely. It sounds like the problems causing T243548 were rolled back a few days ago. And I don't see any sign it's been re-implemented. So it's probably unrelated. phab:T243725 as a contributor seems more likely. Although, and this is a point I've been trying to make at VPT maybe not very successfully, we have to be careful about proscribing one specific cause. Often these things involve a number of different issues which end up pushing things over the edge. In other words, there may very well have been an intentional DDoS, but other issues may have made the problems worse or been part of the reason there was observed problems. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, 9.5 million hits. A lot, to be sure, but not enough to cripple, I would think. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The outage was happening well before the Bryant story broke. It is to do with these kinds of articles: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎? Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was Dmytro Firtash in the library with a lead pipe. Guy (help!) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

File spam

Spam is overwhelming (see WT:WikiProject Spam) so I'm asking here for opinions on how to handle the following new images. These are obviously intended to get a spam external link into Wikipedia after traditional methods of adding them to articles were reverted.

• File:A Poster showing benefits of Local SEO.png
• File:Equity mortage release.png
• File:Flekosteel Review.png
• File:Free Equity Release Calculator.png
• File:Save money while buying parkour shoes.png

Would it be too bold to delete these and indef the creator? I don't see an applicable speedy delete criterion for files. Is WP:G11 ok despite the wording not quite fitting? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:GCSD specifies that the general speedy criteria apply to all types of pages, explicitly including files. So IMO yes, these qualify for G11 and the creator should be blocked for spam. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, blocked, and taking care of the files. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Spartan Race involved actions

A user who was banned in 2017 for (among other things) threatening to involve numerous Wikipedia editors in their real-life personal legal drama has returned to push their agenda at Spartan Race. I am one of those editors they've threatened, and have been involved with content at that article off and on, so technically I fail WP:INVOLVED when blocking two of their new IPs and semiprotecting the article for a good long time. These blocks are not checkuser blocks. Would uninvolved admins please review my actions and adjust as required? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I only see one block, that of *167, and it seems to be fine. As for the two month protection, it seems to be honest excessive to me: I would not give more than two weeks (though the very fact of the protection is reasonable).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I should have specified: the IPs I blocked are 201.170.166.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2806:1000:8002:6b20::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and the page is protected for 14 months. It has previously been protected for one and three months, but I don't see any pattern of the user waiting for protection to expire so maybe you're right that a long term is excessive. Feel free to modify. I'm not sure which 167 IP you mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant the first IP you mentioned, I did not realize the second is the rangeblock. Concerning the protection, let us wait for more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with annoying but infrequent disruption from the same person does raise puzzling questions. But if a one year block of the /64 is justified then I guess a 14-month semiprotection is OK. The article Spartan Race is not about a major topic that will require lots of updates all the time. So I would keep a semiprotection in place for at least six months. The original ban in 2017 was for an editor who made legal threats and promised to expose personal information, needing oversight. ("..if we find your identity, you will be sued for fraud.") EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Page move requests

Would an administrator please move 2005–2006 BAI Basket & 2007–2008 BAI Basket to 2005–06 BAI Basket & 2007–08 BAI Basket. My requests at the proper page, keeps getting deleted by RMCD bot. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please make your request at WP:RMTR. If you try adding things to WP:RMCD the bot will continue to delete your requests. That page is bot-generated and drives off of formal move requests that have been entered on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please move User:CptViraj to User:CptViraj/alt without leaving a redirect. Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Profane username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a user called Dick Pennis, the user has made NO edits in 4 YEARS, and is clearly not here to make an encyclopedia, could you please block this user, due to the profane username? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Per the username policy, "Consider leaving well enough alone". The user hasn't ever edited, so the username isn't causing problems just sitting there. Even if they were making edits, it's possible that Richard Pennis is someone's name, and it would be very unfortunate to block them out of the blue simply for using their real name. This is why the username policy also recommends discussing the username with a user before seeking intervention. No disruption is occuring and and merely resembling the word "penis" isn't sufficient grounds for an immediate block without warning. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, in that case sorry for the disruption I have made 96.230.240.122 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't sweat it 96.230; it's a good faith report, but that's just how it is. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page abuse

There is a user, that has abused their talk page (here is the link), by writing something profane on it, could someone check it out?

P.S I think their username sounds a tad to profane, but I could be wrong, and their username could (hopefully) mean Cat Girl. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's 9 years old. I fail to see the need of an ANI report. I blanked it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I also see you found another old account with 0 edits and made a report. While I am sure you mean well, these are frivolous reports and I doubt action would even be taken at AIV. Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed

An arbitration case regarding Portals has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia. She may appeal this restriction in six months.
• BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months.
• For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct, BrownHairedGirl is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
• The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a guideline for portals. The committee further recommends that this RfC be kept open for at least 30 days, be closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, and at a minimum address the following questions:

• Topics: How broad or narrow should a topic area be for it to sustain a portal?
• Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured?
• WikiProjects: Should portals be required to be connected to an active WikiProject or other group of maintainers?
• Updates: How often should a portal be updated?
• Automation: Can automated tools be used in the creation or maintenance of portals?
• Links to portals: How should portals be used? Should they be linked on all relevant Wikipedia articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used?

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed

FYI: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Assamese language topic ban appeal

Appeal

I recently made a request to editwarring noticeboard to look after a edit war. Warnings are not served to parties involved, rather a topic ban is initiated for possible policy violation. Below are grounds that ban is not justifiable for now:

• There is no possible violation, relevant edit was made according to general consensus in WP:DRN.

See relevant discussion at:

• User_talk:EdJohnston#Appeal_for_roll-backing_ban
• Edit_warring#User:Msasag_reported_by_User:Bhaskarbhagawati_(Result:_Filer_topic_banned). Thank you in advance.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• @EdJohnston: I think this concerns you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The grounds for imposing the topic ban are explained in the two links already given above by Bhakarbhagawati, WP:AN3#User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: Filer topic banned) and in my response at User talk:EdJohnston#Appeal for roll-backing ban. It would be hard to deny there is a dispute, when it has been running since 2012. It is hard to defend the reasonableness of Bhaskar's January 2020 edits at Early Assamese when the continuity of the Assamese language over the centuries is the very issue complained about in the April 2019 ANI). "Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language)." His new edits at Early Assamese cause it to be redirected to Assamese language. In other words, he denies that what is described in the Early Assamese page could be a separate language. His theory seems to be, 'I lost the previous argument, but I haven't reverted for a long time, so it's correct for me to come back and do more reverts'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good ban A topic ban was the right move here. Filer was being disruptive, and seems to have a strong POV that they are incapable of extricating themselves from. I see no impropriety in applying the ban, and think that the filer needs some time to cool off and consider why they were banned. If they stay out of trouble and show understanding of why they were banned, I would support an unblock in 6 months to a year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am ready to comply, but i like to clear why "Early Assamese" was redirected. The Assamese language/Standard Assamese itself based on modern Eastern Assam dialect. As said above by EdJohnston, a modern dialect cannot be equal to a old language. Old Assamese language is long covered in Kamrupi Prakrit, thatswhy we don't have such article by name of Early Assamese till 2020, a content fork, nevertheless i am not going get my hands dirty on it and leaving the article for community conscience.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Bhaskarbhagawati: You are very lucky that you have been handed a very lenient topic ban for your misconduct. You should cease all these attempts to rehash your content dispute and instead focus somewhere else before community would seek a broader topic ban or a block for you. Orientls (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir, you have power to ban and block me, even though i never acted against consensus in my stint here, i still think Wikipedia cannot be trusted.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Francisco Valcarcel

I have just deleted this article per WP:BLPDELETE. Essentially, it was entirely unsourced except for an external link to wbo-int.com (since replaced with a Wayback Machine archive) and an inline citation to The Sun. In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable to have a BLP in this state. As this is likely to be a controversial action since it is not covered by any of the speedy deletion criteria directly, I am bringing discussion here.

I will look at writing a properly BLP-compliant biography when I have looked through WP:BLPSOURCES compliant material and have time to assemble it; alternatively, if anyone who is knowledgeable about boxing managers, I will have no issue with you writing such an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not knowledgeable on boxing managers, here are a few sources. 1 is here, 2 is here and 3 is here. His nickname is "Paco": Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect @Ritchie333: here is another source here. Why didn't you mark the article for deletion? There is a Puerto Rico project that would have seen and addressed the lack of sources. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominating the article at AfD is not appropriate, because I would anticipate the result to be "keep" (at AfD we discuss if it's possible to write a satisfactory encyclopedia article, which it is). Rather, the point of this is to force a properly, reliably sourced version, not the version that would have been flagged up as a borderline WP:BLPPROD if created today as opposed to 15 years ago. For the minute, I have recreated the page as a redirect to World Boxing Organization, which seems pretty uncontroversial. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither BLPDELETE nor BLPPROD supports the deletion of that article without notice. I have restored the history, but left it as a redirect until it can be improved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Thank you... @Ritchie333: ...because if we were going to delete every bio article, without notice, that is poorly sourced, there would be hundreds of thousands of articles deleted.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling of his name, btw.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – taken care of by User:Oshwah. Thanks!

I counted 15 unanswered requests at WP:RFPP. An advance thank you to whoever decides to help out with it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Airline spam ring encountered between IPs and a user

Hello, while scouting airline articles to improve, I have encountered several IPs recently that have been making similar edits to a bunch of airlines. They are inserting spam and phone numbers to the airline. Tracing the IP, it seems that all of them are in Asia/India. Most are registered to Airtel Broadband. I think this may be a spam ring. Here are the IPs and one user I found AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Kerrywilliams123 (talk · contribs),
• 2401:4900:2E92:7:842E:D206:EB93:C8B6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 2401:4900:40F9:5E84:59BF:1DB3:DCFC:74FF (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 122.177.57.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 122.177.25.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 122.177.84.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 2405:204:111B:2C6:6DBD:AE7B:D64A:16EB (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 27.6.199.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 2405:204:3409:1B96:0:0:DD1:E0A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 2405:204:308c:9f74:e6dd:9dd9:45bb:c667 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 2405:204:3085:6d9b:b59f:551c:5f0f:3fd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 103.46.201.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 47.30.163.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 103.46.200.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

See also #Reservation Number Spamming above. Might be worth combining the reports. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Help me understand what happened here and how I should deal with such requests?

User talk:Thanabordee Muangkod is/was tagged for speedy deletion under criterion WP:U2.

The template says "This redirect may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage of a user that does not exist (check)". So, I clicked check and it says the user was "Created on 25 December 2015 at 08:44".

So, I think, I'll have to decline this and I click Edit. The edit page says in red 'User account "Thanabordee Muangkod" is not registered. If you wish to use "Thanabordee Muangkod" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username.'

Hmm - so does the account exist or not?

I noted that the speedy deletion template also says "This excludes userpages for anonymous users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and for the previous name of a recently renamed user (which should normally be left as a redirect to the new name for a reasonable time", so my next line of enquiry would be "is this a renamed user, and was the renaming recent"? The user list entry for the account which the page has been redirected to doesn't appear to help.

I'm not particularly bothered about this particular page as no doubt somebody else will deal with it, but I have 2 questions:

• Why does editing the user page say that the user does not exist, but the "check" link says that they do?

• How do I find out if and when an account has been renamed?

--kingboyk (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

When you click check, it says that Thanabowor Krootdilakanunta exists, not Thanabordee Muangkod. Not sure why it shows that username but they are two different editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The searched username doesn't exist, so the page shows the next username in the alphabet. If you remove the "limit=1" from the URL, you get a list of usernames in alphabetical order. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a redirect from a global rename. I really wish people would stop deleting those. They're useful, and deleting them violates WP:U2 ("except ... the previous name of a renamed user"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, but wouldn’t such a redirect get in the way if a new editor created an account with someone else’s former username? — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not really a problem anymore, because the antispoof feature has protected old usernames from re-creation since June 2018. A new editor would need help from an account creator or an admin to register such a name. -kyykaarme (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you tell it's a redirect from a global rename?

Interestingly, WP:T2 does indeed except "the previous name of a renamed user", but the template Template:Db-u2 - says "the previous name of a recently renamed user". That's quite a significant discrepancy. --kingboyk (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You know what, I think I was wrong. The logs for User talk:ธนบดั เมืองโคตร seem to indicate the user manually moved this page, then moved it back. I thought that I saw this in the global rename log. Weird. I guess I was tired and seeing things. I mostly ignore contradictory or confusing notes about policies on some other page, but I guess you could raise the issue on the template's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a message about the wording inconsistency on the template's talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Caitlin Bennett

• Kaitlin Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A sophomoric meme is being added to this article very frequently. It's currently at PC, should we apply ECP do you think? Guy (help!) 09:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I applied semiprotection for 1 month, after which it will revert to PC. As far as I can tell the recent abuse has not been coming from confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of a murderer removed, possible oversight issue?

I've removed the name of a murderer from an article here. It was mentioned in the lead, the body didn't use it (just initial). His name is also present on wikidata ((Redacted)) and is given by many media sources. I am not sure if oversight is required, but I trust someone here will know if further action is required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have deleted the linked revision pending a decision from an oversighter. Thank you for raising this concern, but in the future please email oversight concerns oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than at AN as this is a high traffic page. See, e.g., Streissand effect. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've handled the suppression, and would echo what Wugapodes has to say about not publicly requesting suppression in the future. Thanks for reporting it! I've also informed the Wikidata oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: You moved it to Sisterproject queue, where unprivileged users can see the ticket contents. I found it and moved it to oversight::oversight-wikidata. — regards, Revi 15:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And duly taken care of. — regards, Revi 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Shoot, thank you—must have misclicked :| GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The BLP issue isn't the mention of the name, it's the use of "murderer" without reference to a conviction. There was consensus for Wikidata to keep the item, which is unlikely if there were no reliable sources, so unless the name had been removed from the sources, the item probably shouldn't have been deleted - "when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision" seems to be the relevant part of policy. Peter James (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Change redirect

Please change the redirects in this articles: Göncz Árpád városközpont and Göncz Árpád városközpont metro station. These were duplicates. The second one is the ordinary name, but the first has the page history. Thanks. Kemenymate (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, looks like appending "metro station" is indeed consistent with the other Budapest metro articles. For future things like this, using the {{db-move}} template might be the quickest way to get an admin to move it over the redirect! Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that template! Kemenymate (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth closed

An arbitration case regarding RHaworth has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• For failure to meet the standards expected of an administrator, including repeated misuse of the deletion tool, RHaworth's administrative user rights are removed. RHaworth may regain administrative user rights at any time via a successful request for adminship.
• Administrators are reminded that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth closed

AfD discussions that are fully protected from the get-go

Last month, there was an AfD on the Kyle Kulinski page.[3] The AfD saw insane amounts of canvassed votes, as the subject of the article and some fringe-left forums directed people to the AfD discussion. The closer concluded that there was "no consensus" and suggested that we might re-do the AfD and have it protected from the get-go to avoid interference from outside actors. Would it be possible for an admin to start such an AfD or to immediately protect it after I myself start one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur with a new AfD being fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You want an AFD only admins can participate in? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected from IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's semi protection not full protection. (Well close to it. There's no such thing as only protecting from IPs.) It may be helpful to check out Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection especially if you are going to comment at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct. Concerning registered editors, how do we determine who's been canvassed off Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not using the correct language here: the amount of protection needed to prevent IP numbers and very recent accounts with few edits from participating?. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is fine as you didn't ask for full protection. It was not possible to clearly indicate I was replying to GoodDay since they failed to follow normal WP:Indenting rules. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know when this happens. KidAd (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being grumpy above, it mostly came about because I made a significant mistake myself. I conflated Kyle Kulinski with the similarly named Kyle Kashuv. Given what I've read before, I felt an AfD on Kashuv would either be keep or at most no consensus. Therefore it seemed a waste of time to open yet another AfD. Still if the previous one was tainted by canvassing and an editor genuinely felt there was chance of reaching a consensus to delete, I also couldn't object to the suggestion. I see now my error and can understand the desire to open another AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation, I agree that a fresh AfD is appropriate and it should be semi-protected from the beginning, because of the history of canvassing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting older, waiting for AFD-in-question to be opened. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have started a new AfD.[4] Can an admin please semi-protect it? Or protect it in whatever way is necessary to make sure that IP numbers and new accounts can't participate. Pinging Cullen328 and Nil Einne. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP in place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Related AfD: Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Would it be possible to also give protection to this[5] AfD for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? The last AfD was complete chaos due to canvassng and ended by "no consensus".[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, so far I don't see any disruption that would warrant protection. If there is disruption, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Sandstein 21:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, will admins still be able to access these four policy violations once the page is deleted? #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless the page is suppressed then yes admins can see the deleted page, including any diffs. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone unilvolved close the discussion at talk:University of Delhi#Proposed merge with Delhi University Students' Union? It was opened on 8 September, 2019. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: do you know how to list a discussion at WP:ANRFC? It's the noticeboard for editors looking for discussions to close. It's transcluded onto this page but you should list it there for best visibility. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan. Till now I was under impression WP:ANRFC is used for RfC closure requests. Now I feel stupid lol. I requested there, but not sure if I did it correctly. Thanks again :) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rtkat3 and autopatrolled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given the autopatrolled right on 25 January 2011 by HJ Mitchell. However, since then his recent actions have contravened the expectations for those entrusted with the right:

• Violation of the WP:OR policy, reverted by Serial Number 54129
• Violating deletion policy by adding content from List of mayors of Gotham City into the section when consensus to delete that article became overwhelmingly apparent; it was removed by Rorshacma, who has taken the redirect to RFD.
• Copying Wikipedia content without attribution.
• Most importantly, creating (including converting from redirects) dozens if not hundreds of articles that fail WP:PLOT, as late as last month. Also unreferenced WP:BLPs. Many of them were deleted/redirected via AFD, and his UTP is full of PROD notices, mostly from either TTN or Piotrus.

What to do now? ミラP 03:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Since admins can give people autopatrolled, they can take it away, and there's enough evidence saying that this is necessary in this case. Sgeureka? JIP? ミラP 03:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

Please remove my rollback right, thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. You're welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Create page request

I was trying to create two redirects when I ran into the blacklist. Specifically I'm seeking to create Hit the Nigger and Hit the Nigger Baby created as redirects to African dodger, which was a common carnival game in which people threw baseballs at African Americans. I understand it's extremely vulgar but those two names were commonly used to refer to to the game, for example Snopes quotes a newspaper article where someone promoting it said "Who can hit the nigger? Buy three chances to hit the nigger" and shows a picture of it being titled "Hit the Nigger Baby". Also, in case this request gets taken out of context I want to make it clear that I DO NOT believe that either of these names are appropriate for the game in question (in fact I believe the game itself is also abhorrent), but that these were both common names for the game African Dodger in the past and should be included as redirects for that reason. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Which policy says Wikipedia should do everything possible to promote a game believed to be abhorrent? Why should redirects be created based on what someone promoting the procedure said perhaps a hundred years ago? Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It was a common game up until the 1940s and was only referred to by these names in many contexts. And promoting the knowledge of what this game was (promoting knowledge of historical atrocities is generally considered OK) is different from actually promoting the game itself. The fact is that this was a very abhorrent game commonly referred to by a very abhorrent name. Ferris State University has an article on it and so does Snopes, with both acknowledging that the second redirect was one of the common names for the game. Here's another example of the first term being used without any reference to the term "African Dodger" and here's another article that also describes the game using the first term. WP:RPURPOSE is the policy I'm citing for this, as these were both widely used alternative names for the game known as "African Dodger". Yes, they are extremely offensive and should have never been promoted by those names. But even though it might be hard to believe nowadays, these were common names for this game in the early 20th/late 19th century; it wasn't just something someone promoting the game said. Someone might very well come looking for information on those terms in the context of historical research and be assisted by these redirects. Not creating the redirects because it would promote the game does a disservice to those seeking to understand it; that in the 1940s you could openly title a carnival game with what is now considered one of the most offensive slurs in the English language and that everyone would know what it was because they've heard the name so many times before. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Just wow. Chess, thanks for elaborating. This fits my criteria of attempting to create an encyclopaedia, as well as my view of the role of admins and the blacklist, so consider them created. You might want to watchlist them, because I'm going to also suggest that anyone who thinks they shouldn't exist should head to RfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Chess WP:RPURPOSE isn't a policy but an editing guideline. However, there is a policy that covers the creation of the redirects, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and in particular Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Johnuniq I'm surprised that you are not familiar with that policy. Offensive redirects and articles are not an indication that Wikipedia, or any given editor, supports or promotes the content. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Request review of partial blocking templates and Twinkle defaults

If you've done any partial blocks with Twinkle lately, you'll have noticed some major improvements since the first roll out. I've fixed some bugs, but in particular (thanks to SD0001) you can now search for the specific pages more easily, finding the exact title. Additionally, QEDK worked hard to get {{uw-pblock}} off the ground, and I've just now added some more presets to Twinkle's blocking dropdown, in particular making use of templates for edit warring ({{uw-ewpblock}}), email blocking ({{uw-epblock}}), account creation blocking ({{uw-acpblock}}). I'd appreciate folks who have an interest in the area looking over some of those presets and seeing if the default settings make sense or could use some tweaking, as well as any suggestions for other templates (e.g. Template_talk:Uw-aeblock#Partial_blocking_as_enforcement). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial

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

This section is fallout from the above "User:BOZ" section, but since BOZ is not responsible for Newimpartial's edits (and vice versa), I thought it better to start a separate section to discuss the conduct by Newimpartial (and the editors they accuse of misconduct, including me).

While the BOZ discussion was for the most part a polite, reasonable discussion about those issues, Newimpartial brought a very aggressive, attacking aspect to it, with false claims, unreasonable demands, and a disturbing lack of understanding of policies they insisted on discussing anyway. I'll ignore most of the incorrect references to policies (and policy violations) and so on to focus on some clear attacks and incorrect claims.

Third edit to the discussion: they claim falsely that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen was not in the relevant categories ("nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories"), when it was in Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts[8].

Their next tactic is attacking through out of context quoting: when I state that ""keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" [...] still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all. ", they reply[9]: "I just wanted to note that a "Merge per PRESERVE" !vote is just about as valid a policy consideration as there is on WP, and the fact that Fram doesn't recognize it as such[...] says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ."

In the discussion about WP:INVOLVED, they start adding some things which have nothing to do with the issue at hand: "Userification of deleted content does not in any way strike me as an abuse of the tools", when no userfication happened anyway or is being discussed, and then discussing WP:PRESERVE as if that somehow creates an exception to WP:INVOLVED (they also claim at user talk:BOZ that ArbCom hsa just set "a new and very inclusive definition for INVOLVED; however, it would make no sense at all for me to try to apply it retroactively.", while all ArbCom did was copy the policy text which had been there for years and years.

Finally, they go into pure attack mode[10]: "CIVIL violations and poisonous conduct are potentially quite a bit more serious. And Fram has engaged in a consistent pattern of bullying towards BOZ (as in previous instsnces), such as the condescending dismissal of Space Gamer as a source here and the scathing dismissal (while failing basic reading comprehension) here of the notability of articles that were subsequently Kept at AfD. " I invite all of you to check the links and compare them to Newimpartials description of them, and also to compare my conduct to the description by Newimpartial. Dismissing a source (more precisely, the very short" capsule reviews" in that source, and the use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source) is not bullying, uncivil, poisonous conduct, ... Checking and judging sources (for reliability, notability, whether it is a passing mention or not, independence of the subject, ...) is what we are supposed to do.

As long as they restricted their attacks to me, oh well, I apparently trigger this reaction with them, shrug. But it no longer is restricted to me, judging from their most recent edit to the same discussion, about User:Chetsford[11].

And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow?
— User:Newimpartial 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not an admin, so Chetsford isn't another admin. The "documented history" of hounding is an ANI discussion started by Newimpartial[12] which was closed without any action (with little support for the rather grave accusations by Newimpartial, and which also contained a boommerang proposal to AfD ban Newimpartial), after which Chetsford became this year an admin with near-unanimous support. The links for "battleground", "grave dancing", or "pile on" are all rather standard edits. Trying to find out what the outrage was about, I followed the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats. Newimpartial provides three sources, and when they are challenged on these by Chetsford, they start making dubious claims:

• Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you
• You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see.

Even ignoring that Chetsford said "incidental", not "identical", these replies have some serious problems. Now, I can't see the complete Future Wars source, but it is a fanzine, a self-published, stapled home-made magazine.[13] The "full length review" is of the game Space: 1889, the AFD is for a supplement to it, but in any case not a RS.

But I can see the other two sources, and Chetsford is spot on and Newimpartial is actually bullying an editor who exposed his false claims:

• The Miniature Wargames source is from 2017, doesn't mention Cloudships & Gunboats at all, but discusses "Cloudships of Mars", an unrelated game also based on Space 1889, made by different people over two decades later[14].
• The book source is the perfect example of a passing mention[15].

This could be an accident, but looking at another AfD they are active in, it seems to be a disturbing pattern. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, they keep insisting against the arguments of all others that "Flames Rising" is a professional site and thus a reliable source, even if the website describes itself as a fanzine, and the review used is written by "spikexan" aka "Anthony Todd Cash", described by Newimpartial as "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around". While this may be true, I can find no evidence of this in the 40 Google hits about him[16] or the fact that his book is self-published at lulu.com. His Spikexan alias doesn't fare any better[17].

TLDR: Newimpartial has provided almost nothing constructive to the above discussions, misinterprets policy, misrepresents what happened in discussions (e.g. about WP:BEFORE), personally attacks editors, misrepresents sources, and then bullies editors who expose his errors. Editors who try to influence discussions by deliberately and repeatedly making false claims should be warned, blocked, or topic banned from such discussions. Considering that a topic ban was already proposed in the previous ANI discussion[18], a warning is no longer warranted, and therefor I propose to Topic ban Newimpartial from all deletion discussions and admin noticeboards. We should strive to have civil and fair discussions, and editors who don't contribute within these rules should not be tolerated. Fram (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted every use of other users' signatures from your post. Please stop using them in a quotation; they belong at the end of a user's own comment only. I used {{tq}} but you are free to go back and convert it to some other acceptable convention for quoting other users on this noticeboard. AGK ■ 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You do understand what a quote is, AGK? "they belong at the end of a user's own comment only. " is exactly where they were placed. Please explain to me how

• "And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow? Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"

is unacceptable, but

• And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow?
  — User:Newimpartial 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

is not? If you wanted me to use a layout which made it more glaring that these were quotes (instead of using quotation marks to indicate quotes, and using the actual layout used by the original poster), then you could have said so. But an "unacceptable use"? That seems like very strong language for this... Fram (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fram, were you just trying to sneak in another use of the signature, under the guise of an irrelevant comparative illustration, just to be difficult?

When you take another user's comment and restate it, you are quoting them - it is not a comment by that user. Stop duplicating signatures – is that clear? AGK ■ 11:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"When you take another user's comment and restate it, you are quoting them - it is not a comment by that user." Yes, that's why the final part of the quote, the sig + timestamp, are within the quote marks and not outside of it. It is very clear what you want me to do, but it is absolutely not clear why you are insisting on this, never mind being heavy-handed about it. Very perceptive of you though to note my "sneaking", I thought I had hidden it perfectly well. Fram (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The on-going commentary on signatures may also appear pretty irrelevant to some. Firstly, I count three uses of Newimpartial's sig (by Fram), which seems neither excessive nor particularly out of place as a timestamp for a quote. Secondly, if you are going to threaten someone (is that clear? absolutely qualifies as ad verecundiam), please cite the policy upon which you stand. Then everyone knows where they stand, and the thread is not derailed, which could otherwise be an unintended consequence. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a basic convention on enwiki. Wikipedia:Signatures could not be clearer about why we sign posts in the first place: to [help] all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Your long post here is a "work" that should end with your signature. Encountering a four-tildes signature in the middle of your comment is jarring and not permitted. You, Fram, are the only user in recent memory who has this habit. Users of this noticeboard are entitled to expect comments, especially ones raising a new issue, to be presented clearly and correctly. AGK ■ 12:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Basically, you find it distracting, so instead of asking me to adopt a different method of presenting dated quotes, you come along all guns ablaze, acting as if I made some blockable offense? Right... Fram (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with AGK that inclusion of signatures makes it difficult to ascertain who is writing the comment and should generally be avoided when quoting, a simple {{tq}} suffices. But again, it is not a big deal, just distracting and annoying mostly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

Fram's first allegation is that my statement, "nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories" (referring to the Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen AfD) is a false claim because it was in Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts[19]. I have already acknowledged the WikiProject tagging - which is not for the AfD per se but which can generate AfD notifications, as Fram has pointed out. However, as far as I am aware, Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) is used for physical sports rather than tabletop games, and the correct (and highly active) deletion sorting category for games is the project deletion sorting page for Games, which was not tagged for the AfD in question. So I don't see how my claim that it "was not tagged to the relevant categories" was false.

Fram's second allegation is attacking through out of context quoting, but the example seems incomplete: I don't see how this diff removes any needed context or misinterprets the quotation it provides. I am, however, quite willing to be enlightened and corrected on this point.

On Fram's third point, User:BOZ can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought some of the undeletions under discussion were related to his practice of bringing material back so that it can be incorporated into userspace drafts; again, I apologise if this an error, but it does reflect my understanding at the time. Re: the Arbcom decision, I was making reference to the comment by BrownHairedGirl, The Arbs' support of a principle of strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED may well be wise, but it does not reflect current community norms, and has been opposed in this case by many editors in good standing. As pledged, I will apply that strict interpretation in future, but I object strongly to its retrospective imposition on me personally, especially as a basis for sanctions. (found here). Perhaps "new" was not the right word, but I am not the only one to find the ruling novel or controversial in the present context.

And to Fram's "final" point, they manage to make novel interpretations of their own cited comments : this post about Space Gamer is not at all about use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source - which, as far as I know, has not happened, Fran said that A review ... in Space Gamer is not sufficient to establish notability at all ... Please don't create further articles on such things unless there are much better sources. Of course one review does not establish Notability, but per NBOOK two independent, RS reviews do, and so for publications from which Space Gamer is independent, it counts as one of the two, as RSN has previously established. Fram's admonishment, "Please don't create further articles in such things unless there are much better sources" was certainly experienced as bullying, whatever their intent. Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description of their comment here as "failing basic reading comprehension" when they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating. Is that characterization accepted, then?

As far as the recent AfD's are concerned, the other admin, who keeps a scorecard for his game AfD participation took notice of the BOZ discussion, gave partisan Barnstars to Fram and another editor for sending BOZ articles to AfD, and sent two moreto AfD himself, all in an hour or so. Dismissing these actions by User:Chetsford, Fram then opted to nitpick my participation in a couple of recent AfDs, begun by Chetsford. While I am happy to discuss this participation, it seemed more urgent to put the record straight on Fram's first four points regarding noticeboard participation, since they seem most germane to my participation here. I may have made a mistake or two, but I don't see any evidence in Fram's wall of text or any policy violations on my part. But as I say, I am prepared for correction. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we definitely need you to comment on issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, which are more pressing than the issues you have chosen to address first. AGK ■ 12:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Admin Noticeboard is the place to discuss the editorial practices of Flames Rising or the merits of Todd Cash as a reviewer. Do you have some other aspect of that AfD in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"this post about Space Gamer is not at all about use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source - which, as far as I know, has not happened" I quote from that post, with emphasis added: "A review (certainly a capsule review) in Space Gamer is not sufficient to establish notability at all (and in some cases wasn't even an independent source, reveiwing stuff from their own company)". The post wasn't that long, so how you missed it even now is not clear. "Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description[...]" Like I said, my post was already TLDR and I tried to focus not on comments you made about me, but attacks on others and factual errors. That doesn't mean that I accept you making such personal attacks, no, and repeating it doesn't seem wise. I have no idea where you get the idea that "they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating": the article Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2 have a different title, a nearly identical image, and identical text. The need for two articles here, when even the lone source treats them together, is absoluetly not clear. This has nothing to do with my reading comprehension. Anyway, like AGK said, some other issues are rather more pressing, like your claims that Chetsford indulged in FakeNews when it appears that it was only you who did this. Fram (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If your complaint was that there should have been a single article for the two field guides because it was more policy compliant for these topics to be treated together rather than to develop as separate articles, then that may have been a failure of comprehension on my part, since I did not at all get that from not only is it rather unclear why these two identical articles are not created as one in the first place (as they clearly belong tgether), but even more why they would pass our notability guideline and would survive an AfD. Of course they DID survive at AfD (ones, by the way, in which I did NOT participate), so perhaps there was some text missing in your original comment.

Also, I am still not clear on the relevance of your "in some cases" comment about the Space Gamer, unless it is hypothetical, since to my knowledge nobody has tried to use a Space Gamer as evidence of WP:N in cases where it lacked independence as a source. But I am open to correction. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

All created by BOZ shortly before my note at their talk page (worse, in some case after my note there): The AADA Vehicle Guide, Armadillo Autoduel Arena, Boat Wars, The Car Wars Compendium, Car Wars Expansion Kit 10, Car Wars Expansion Set 6, Convoy (Car Wars), Double Arena, Hell on Wheels (supplement) (redirected by me, undone by BOZ), The Road (Task Force Games), Sunday Drivers, Truck Stop (Car Wars), Turbofire. I haven't checked whether these are notable or not, but they have all been created with, and still only have, a single primary source, and no secondary sources. But this is something for the BOZ section, not for this section. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as FAKENEWS is concerned, my comment was, in full, Surely some mistake, Chetsford. The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources. None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you. ( diff) That comment was a response to this, in which Chetsford erroneously claimed that he examined the three sources I mentioned here and they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence. In fact, the two sources with issue citations are full-length reviews, so I thought it important for him to correct his error, but instead Chetsford doubled down. Under these circumstances, I do not see how the term "Fake news" would not apply, but perhaps there are factors I have not considered. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Perhaps there are factors I have not considered": I thought I was explicit enough, but once again: I could access two of the three sources (the third was a fanzine which had a full length review of the main game, not specifically this supplement), and the book was a pure mention (not even a single line mention, more like a three word mention), while the Miniature Wargames magazine[20] doesn't mention Cloudships & Gunboats at all, but instead reviews the unrelated "Cloudships of Mars", a different game created 25 years later by different people. So not only did you include at least one reference not even about this game, but when Chetsford challenged you on these references, you doubled down, claiming that he couldn't have seen them and so on: and even now, when I explained what was wrong, you still maintain that you were right and that you "do not see how the term "fake news" would not apply"? Could you, when multiple people maintain that you have made a factual error (and attacked others over it), at least check what these people say and actually look again whether you haven't made an error? Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If I made a factual error over the name of a game reviewed, that has no bearing on whether User:Chetsford was speaking appropriately in referring to two full reviews as mentions in a single sentence and then doubling down on that. You yourself have seen that what he claimed is not conceivably true. And I myself did not "double down" on anything except the falsity of Chetsford's claim. Chetsford did not, as you did, challenge whether the reference was to the correct name - I admit that that is a distinction I could have missed, but it is not part of the dispute with Chetsford because it does not affect the veracity of his statement, which I challenged. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Talking about 'correct name' seems silly here. The key point is that as I understand it, that source has no review of the game you are talking about despite you repeatedly claiming it does. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. You cannot assume someone will work out why they cannot find a review of the game you are talking about in the source where you claimed they should find one. Even if someone only has a very quick look at that source, it's probably easy to see there is no review of the game. If someone has a more careful look they may notice there is a review of another game with a vaguely similar name and may wonder if that's why you said there was a review of the game when there wasn't. But it's not someone's responsibility to work out why you keep talking about something which didn't exist. To put it a different way, you're complaining because Chetsford, did not find the review you kept talking about since it didn't exist and so probably chose to assume that the game was mentioned somewhere and they just didn't find it. Or maybe simply forgot there was no mention. And given that, rather than simply saying they couldn't find any mention, they incorrectly said it had brief mention. I actually agree it would have been better if they'd simply said 'I can't find any mention of that game anywhere'. But it is dumb to make such a big deal over what they said. Especially when the problem arose from you making such a major mistake of making a big deal over something which doesn't exist. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you didn't have a single full review of the Gunboats supplement. You had one full review of the main 1889 game in a fanzine, a 3-word mention of the Gunboats in a book, and then a long RS review of a completely different game which contained one sentence about the 1889 game, which may have caused Chetsford's charitable conclusion that you were using that one sentence to support the article at AfD. However, on closer inspection even that sentence is not about the Gunboats article.

You were viciously attacking Chetsford over doubting your sources, which they, according to you, hadn't seen. But from your initial mistakes, and your replies here, it seems increasingly likely that you have not seen these sources either. If you had access to the Miniature Wargames source, there would be no reason at all to continue with "IF I made a factual error" and "A distinction I could have missed". You would just open your copy again, read the article, and state "you're right, I completely misread that article", not this evasive stuff. You still say "whether User:Chetsford was speaking appropriately in referring to two full reviews" when there was not a single full review, as you would see if you actually had access to these sources and reopened them, instead of doing a poor Google search but pretending that you had read these sources anyway. Fram (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, Fram (and this is also a reply to Nil) - in my hurry to find reviews, I mistook a review of the new game for a review of the old game. But per Future Wars, what I see is a review of Cloudships and Gunboats itself, not Space 1889 as a whole. In any event, the result in the AfD was not me viciously attacking Chetsford over doubting your sources. What happened was that I called out Chetsford for saying they appear to be incidental mentions in a single sentence when that was only true of one of the three sources. When I am at AfD I engage with it, sometimes provide supporting documentation and sometimes concede mistakes and offer substitute examples or even make new suggestions (and I have already made a Merge and redirect proposal at Cloudships & Gunboats). What I don't do is say things that I have reasonable grounds to know are untrue, and then double down on them when challenged, which has been Chetsford's approach to RPG AfD for as long as I have known him. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You misread the review, and then did it again when challenged by Chetsford, and again when challenged by me. Even now, you continue to claim that in the Future Wars fanzine, "what I see is a review of Cloudships and Gunboats itself, not Space 1889 as a whole." which is very weird for an article titled "Reviews: Space 1889"... You have not even gone back to the AfD and corrected your mistakes. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fram, do you not see the Cloudships & Gunships heading that follows next after Space: 1889 in that issue? I am somewhat at a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally found another source (forum[21]) mentioning that issue (which, like I said from the start, haven't seen, contrary to your other two sources), and it seems indeed to also have a review of Cloudships and Gunboats (my previous source was [22]). At least here you were telling the truth, still is a fanzine which does nothing to help notability, nor does it change your inclusion of one source not about the game at all, and one where it is mentioned in the briefest possible way: and still doesn't change anything about your treatment of Chetsford, nor of your equally false claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club, which User:AGK above specifically asked you to address this and similar ones first. Fram (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fram, thank you for acknowledging your mistake about one of the Cloudships & Gunboats reviews, just as I have acknowledged my mistake about another. As far as The Kerberos Club is concerned - and I don't mean this as doubling down on my part - but I don't see where I have made any "false claims". My statement about the Routledge Companion reference was that, while not SIGCOV in itself being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS. Certainly editors may disagree with my statement in terms of policy, but it isn't a "false claim" in the sense we were discussing re: Cloudships & Gunboats.

And as far as Flames rising is concerned, I haven't knowingly made any false clains there either - it has independent editorial oversight and employs writers with professional credentials, so the fact that it has "Fanzine" on its masthead does not per policy make it an unreliable source. Again, I understand that editors may reasonably disagree with this, but that doesn't make it a "false claim" or grounds for the topic ban you have proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem rather good in cherry-picking the things you answer. "The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture" is what you said, but being discussed means that something is said about it, not that it is simply being mentioned. This is the exact same thing as you did in the other AfD, using an extremely minor mention in a book as if it was a discussion of the source. For "Flamesrising", you claimed that it is "a professional publication", with professional editors: the site itself makes no such claims, calls itself a fanzine, and makes it clear that the people behind it actually have daytime job. " the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy," Like I said, the McElroy claim seems unsupported, and the Anthony Cash claim goes against all available evidence. Even here, you claim that flamesrising "employs" writers, which seems to be rather at odds with the site itself, which states "Payment: At this time, we do not offer monetary payment to authors for the ability to publish their work."[23]. So you have, despite multiple people pointing out the problems with using flamesrising as a RS, continued to make claims about it which have no relation to the verifiable reality of it. When mistakes are pointed out and you not only repeat them but add more and more of them to support your fiction, then yes, this is grounds for a topic ban, certainly when coupled with the many personal attacks inbetween. Fram (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

To me, when something is used as an example in a discussion then it is being discussed; so for example, when I referred to deletion nominations by TTN as an example of what was going on for BOZ right now - even though I don't think TTN is doing anything wrong - I courtesy-linked him in the exchange, per policy, as I was discussing his actions (as example). So your semantic point about "discussing" something and a thing "simply being mentioned", while relevant to SIGCOV certainly, doesn't really speak either to Chetsford's false claims (according to him, as of today, the book source you refer to in "the other AfD" does not exist at all), nor does it show any "false claims" on my part.

As far as Flames rising is concerned, I don't want to keep discussing the same issue in two different parts of the same AN discussion. However, I do want to point out that, based on the masthead information, both the editor and reviewer in question have professional publications in the fields, and the stable of reviewers includes Monica Valentinelli and Ken Hite. Whether or not they are paid for their reviews does not affect the source's editorial standing, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"took notice of the BOZ discussion" - I think the way Newimpartial has historically chosen to comport him/herself in AfD discussions about fantasy role-play does not offer a positive contribution to our discussion/consensus model and they don't have a rational sense of proportion as seen above when they characterize an AfD discussion as a "dispute" or previously when they equated comparing two fantasy games they thought were dissimilar as "akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust" [24] (among 100 other instances). However, there's nothing I can say here that would add meaningfully to what will certainly become another wall of text death spiral. I do, however, want to correct the preceding un-diffed allegation they made about me. Contrary to the assertion, I was unaware of the existence of the above discussion about BOZ until a few minutes ago when it was mentioned here. The reason I left a barnstar on Fram's talk page [25] was to thank him for nominating several Fancruft articles for deletion, an area in which I've also been active. This should be self-evident from a plain, non-conspiratorial reading of the text. I think it's ridiculous this needs to be said, however, Fram and I do not have a secret code to signal to each other through barnstars. (In fact, from checking the editor interaction analyzer, it appears Fram and I have never interacted with each other before now.) Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking, as Fram has earlier, about attacking through out of context quoting, it seems relevant to offer the context of the abortion/holocaust quote, which was as follows: Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion: the intent is clearly not to encourage civil discussion of the issues (emphasis added; diff here). As can be seen, this is not about "a comparison of two games I thought were dissimilar", but I will AGF that Chetsford's attention or memory had wandered when he made that incorrect assertion. Also, I doubt that there is any desire to discuss Chetsford's retributive AfD nomination of Hillfolk, but it remains true that his attempts to equate an award-winning cultural work to a construction material were clearly not intended to encourage civil discussion, which as an Admin he is now expected to do more consistently than he has in the past.

Also, how he could have remained unaware of the BOZ issue until "a few minutes ago" when I gave him a courtesy notice yesterday, seems hard to understand. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing out of context about it, demonstrable by the fact that you had to issue an apology [26] for making the statement when other editors questioned your sense of rationality and proportionality, an apology you now seem to be retracting. You've previously also refactored your standard !vote rationale in AfD "improper nom by clueless editor" (e.g. here [27], here [28], [29], here [30], [31], etc.) after you were cautioned it was the pinnacle of disruption. Do you intend to retract those refactors, also? Insofar as pinging me, I generally disregard pings inviting me to come to ANI, until they become so utterly exhausting they're impossible to ignore, a threshold you've once again successfully surmounted. Chetsford (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I have not retracted any apologies or undone any refactoring of those 2018 discussions, nor have I had any recent experiences of having to refactor myself for reasons of CIVILity. As I said in the apology diff you cited above, I was trying to come up with an example of deliberate button-pushing that everyone here would understand, because that exemplifies what Chetsford has been doing this week and what, really, I think is one of the key challenges right now in WP discourse - not about games, but about deliberate button-pushing while remaining civil in order to GAME the system and produce drama, in some combination. I have become more temperate since 2018, I think, but I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved; viz. the barnstars and the frequent "lapses of attention at AfD, such as mistaking a publication for a company here. Also, we are not at ANI lol. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"viz. the barnstars" If you find that a barnstar left for Fram [32] on Fram's Talk page "push[es your] buttons" then, might I suggest, you — oh, I don't know — just don't read Fram's Talk page? Your suggestion that the community needs to walk around on eggshells since you could be set off at any moment for any reason is not a reasonable request for accommodation. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is any evidence that something on WP has "set me off" since 2018, I have not seen that evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I have to say you should never assume someone is aware of something just because you pinged them. There is a reason why most notification requirements, including the AN ones, still require talk page notification. Second, I'm getting very confused now. What is this button pushing you're referring to. If it wasn't the barn star, what is it? Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: notifications, I totally take your point. And I don't want to bore everyone with button pushing diffs, but the launch of the Wild Talents AfD pretending it is a company rather than a publication (linked above) seems like a riff on Chetsford's precious riffs in 2018, where he referred to game publishers as toy manufacturers and books as board games (as a series of "mistakes", not by analogy), and compared the top creative awards in pencil and paper RPG publishing to cement manufacturers' industry awards. Most recently, he has argued (and seemingly convinced a less experienced editor) that a long form, four volume, narrative history of the RPG form (which was found to be a RS when Chetsford took it to the RSN in 2018) is actually an industry directory. That is what I mean by button pushing. Diffs available on request, but I'm not sure that is the topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the Wild Talents AfD and don't see anything that bad. I don't think the AfD opening text was as clear as it should have been, but 'pretending' seems a bit far. Do you have any evidence anyone was likely to incorrectly believe it was a company? Do you have any evidence it was done deliberately with that intention? If anything, their wording was more harmful to their support for deletion than beneficial. As for the dispute over that source, there seems to be a reasonable dispute over whether or not that source counts as one part of WP:SIGCOV. It's a complicated issue, and not one that can or should be solved at AN. I see zero evidence the dispute was a deliberate attempt to 'push your buttons' instead of a reasonable dispute between editors surrounding somewhat complicated areas of policy. If you are going to work here, you're going to need to accept that people may disagree with you interpretation of policy for reasons they will explain, without doing it to 'push your buttons'. If you can't do that, I have to say you should voluntarily stay away from any area where you can't before you get topic banned. Just as a quick addition, I would add that if you're so sure your interpretation is clearly correct, I don't see any reason to worry anyway. Chetsford's arguments would rightfully be disregarded. You don't even really need to say much. It's only if there is a chance that you might not be right that you have cause for concern, but that means it's even clearer that Chetsford is fully entitled to express their views of policy interpretation without being accused of only doing it to 'push your buttons'. (That said, a closer may also chose to say 'well there's only one source so it doesn't matter who is right'.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"he referred to game publishers as toy manufacturers and books as board games (as a series of "mistakes", not by analogy)" Correct, that's almost exactly what I said. And those weren't "mistakes" so I don't know whom you're quoting when you say "mistakes". Precisely, in an AfD discussion I said that - for purposes of WP:NBOOK - a book of rules for a fantasy role-play game was an instruction booklet for a game, not unlike the instruction booklet for Monopoly, and NBOOK doesn't apply. I stand by that. If you find that me comparing a fantasy game to a finance game "pushes [your] buttons" to the point that you lose all self-control then I'd suggest this may be a topic in which you're too emotionally invested to effectively or safely contribute. There's a case to be made for reasonable accommodation to emotional triggers, but those you're identifying as yours seem to be of such innocuous characteristics it's almost impossible for us to predict or avoid. Wikipedia is not worth anyone risking their health or well-being over. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Two points in response to Chetsford (which I hope will also address your concern, Nil): first, I said that I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved, and I have given evidence for that. What has changed, is that I no longer react intemperately when you try to push my buttons - it doesn't work any more. It doesn't make your deliberate mis-statements any less offensive to me, but my filters are now well in place so my reactions, if any, are measured. I wasn't even the one that involved you in this AN section; Fram brought up my interactions with you as an item in his condemnation. Now granted, this followed my brief invocation of you in the BOZ AN, but that was one example within a complex "kick them while they're down" situation involving three editors, and was not about your interactions with me specifically.

The thing about your "mistakes", Chetsford, is that you are presenting them now as though they were arguments you were making in response to other arguments, analogies of sorts. A few of them were, like the infamous "cement award" comparison. But most of them aren't: AFAICT you just baldly mis-state one thing for another - often in your AfD nomination itself - because (a) you feel they are equivalent though you must know they literally aren't the same, and (b) you think it will help your argument if people are thinking about the second thing you mention. So literary games become "puzzle toys", three hundred page works of imaginative sub-creation become "instruction booklets", narrative histories become "directories" and so on. And you don't mind if someone takes your analogy too literally and accepts your judgement at face value, because in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above). Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban Newimpartial from all deletion discussions and admin noticeboards

Okay, that's more than enough. These issues aren't new: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#Propose topic ban Newimpartial. In the above section, meant to discuss Newimperials personal attacks, misinterpretations of policy, and false statements at AfD, they have simply continued making the same kind of edits. Their rather severe attack on Chetsford was just "an example", but they have not explained how a completely failed attempt initiated by Newimpartial to cause trouble for Chetsford[33] is evidence of a "documented history of deliberate antagonism", nor how a simple AfD log last edited 6 months ago can be equated to " has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND". Instead, they continue to attack Chetsford, with statements like "Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above)."

Contrary to this claim, the above section showed clearly that the only one introducing "fake news" into the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats) was Newimpartial, who used sources which were not even about the game in question, but continued to maintain that they had read them and that they were full length reviews. An editor who deliberately makes false claims at AfD, attacking editors who have actually checked the claims, and who continues to state that they were right in the fae of all actual evidence, can not be trusted in discussions (whether they can be trusted to edit otherwise is not clear, I haven't checked their regular editing). Fram (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Response from Newimpartial Fram, you have made a false (and most UNCIVIL) accusation against me, referring to me as: an editor who deliberately makes false claims at AfD, attacking editors who have actually checked the claims, and who continues to state that they were right in the fae of all actual evidence. To address these points in turn:

. I never "deliberately made a false claim at AfD"; I made a mistake about which game a reviewer was reviewing, as I have admitted more than once.

. I have not "attacked editors who have actually checked the claim" - the editor Fram believes I attacked, Chetsford, did not AFAICT check the claim as he also did not notice that the review I cited was about a different game. I also have not "attacked" Fram, who did find my error; rather I have acknowledged my mistake.

. Also, there is no reasonable interpretation that I "attacked" Chetsford. The most aggressive point of my comment at AfD was, None of the three are identical. Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you, which in the first part an accurate, factual statement and in the last part certainly not a Personal Attack per policy.

. I do not "continue to state that I am right in the face of all evidence"; rather, I have clearly acknowledged my mistake.

Whether "deliberately making false claims at AfD" and "continuing to state they are right in the face of all evidence" might characterize the behaviours of other editors at AfD I leave as an open question but that certainly is not me, unless there are diffs I don't recall making :p. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

False claims at AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kerberos Club:The work is discussed in The Routledge Companion to Cyberpunk Culture, and a casual search reveals multiple RS reviews.. It is mentioned in a footnote in that book[34], and a thorough search reveals no further RS. Flamesrising is a professional publication that has editorial oversight over professional reviewers like Ken Hite; it is not a "Fan site" in the sense of WP:SPS. It is a pure fansite, a good one, but not a professional one. The site itself reveals that the review was written by Anthony Todd Cash, one of the most respected RPG reviewers around, and edited by Matt McElroy, both of whom have professional publications in the field. It is therefore a RS: Like I said above, there is no evidence at all that Cash is "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around", he seems to be barely known as such, and definitely isn't a professional. I can also find no evidence for your claim that it was "edited by Matt McElroy", he isn't mentioned here. At the other AfD, we have this miniatures game was also reviewed in independent source Future Wars (Issue 19) and in Miniature Wargames (Issue 409), and also discussed in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today. Need I go on? GNG clearly met. (one non-RS, one source that doesn't mention the game, and one three-word mention, not a "discussion" of it at all). When challenged by someone claiming that they have looked at the sources, you don't check again, but simply repeat The Future Wars and Miniature Wargames references are full-length reviews in print sources.

Attacks at those AfDs: I hope you are not engaged in trolling, Chetsford, Perhaps you jest?, An easily-made rookie mistake (abaout Chetsford's correct claim that ""flamesrising.com" is a fanzine), Chetsford, now that you have the tools, you should feel some responsibility to reflect WP policy rather than your own ideosynctatic convictions., Perhaps your allergy to Monica Valentinelli got the better of you. (all from the Kerberos AfD), Care to retract? FAKENEWS does not become you., You might want to confine yourself to sources you can actually see..

Attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Talents (role-playing game): Perhaps this admin was given his tools too soon.

Attacks in these two sections: And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. (as mentioned above) Interestingly, Fram drew no special attention to my description of their comment here as "failing basic reading comprehension" when they confused the article titles they were complaining to BOZ for allegedly duplicating. Is that characterization accepted, then?, manage to make novel interpretations of their own cited comments, I am unsure that your resistance to the temptation to push buttons has improved, It doesn't make your deliberate mis-statements any less offensive to me, in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian

Problematic claims in these sections:

when called out on their selective quoting[35], they claim I don't see how this diff removes any needed context or misinterprets the quotation it provides: they changed a sentence about "keep or merge per..." to "merge per", even though my statement said " still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all". If the complaint is that no arguments for keeping is provided, and you leave the "keep" out of the quote, only keeping the "merge", then you are selectively quoting: if you then use that quote to make personal attacks (says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ), and don't recognise this when it is brought to your attention, then you either lack the necessary skills to have a meaningful discussion at these noticeboards (hance: topic ban), or you are deliberately trolling (in which case, topic ban and block).

In fact, the two sources with issue citations are full-length reviews, so I thought it important for him to correct his error, but instead Chetsford doubled down. Under these circumstances, I do not see how the term "Fake news" would not apply, but perhaps there are factors I have not considered. Long after it had been brought to his attention that there were no two full length reviews but at most one (unreliable) one, continuing to peddle this

Fram brought up my interactions with you as an item in his condemnation: well, you brought up your interactions with Chetsford, I only reacted to your unfounded, over-the-top attack.

Failure to retract statements: the AfD for the gunboats still contains Newimpartials false claims, something like this post about Space Gamer is not at all about "use of it even when it was about a product from the same company as the source" - which, as far as I know, has not happened remains, just like nearly every point in these discussions

And there are some frankly crappy AfD contributions (and results) in the links you just gave, with lots of "Delete per nom" and no evidence of BEFORE. It was quite easy to see that WP:BEFORE compliant searches were done, but even after this was shown to you, and the relevant portions of BEFORE explained, you still didn't see fit to acknowledge this. Similar, they ask for an explanation of WP:INVOLVED, but stick to their non-policy reading of it anyway, and act all surprised when it turns out that another admin has been desysopped recently in part for just such violations, claiming that this was a novel reading of the policy.

Basically, your claim that there is no reasonable interpretation that I "attacked" Chetsford. alone, compared to the many attacks you launched, is enough to make your approach clear. Fram (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to this newer list, I expect that most readers (sic.) will be relieved to hear that I will not address each point individually, unless asked. However, I will respond to the first point as it seems to be Fram's key - and repeated - assertion, that I make "false claims at AfD".

. About the Routledge Companion, the fact that the mention is in a footnote discussion of GDW's Space: 1889 does not change what I said at the AfD, that being used as an example in an academic text is certainly an example of recognition that corroborates the notability established through significant mentions in RS. I don't see a false claim.

. About Flames rising, the editorial staff of the site is documented here. I haven't checked out all of the staff, but the Owner/Editor, the Project Manager (whose WP bio Chetsford previously sent to AfD), and the Reviewer in question all have professional publications in the field. I understand that other arguments can be made and AN isn't the place to argue about article sourcing, but I don't see a "false claim" here either, just a claim with which Fram and Chetsford disagree.

. Concerning Cloudships & Gunships, I erroneously cited a review in Miniatures Wargaming that was for another game, and have acknowledged my mistake. I cited a review in Future Wars that Chetsford claims not to exist and that Fram acknowledged but does not see as reliable. I also cited a mention in Storytelling in the Modern Board Game and my point there is, as with the mention of Kerberos in the Routledge Guide, that being cited as an example in a scholarly work can contribute to Notability even if it is not SIGCOV or useful for documenting facts about the subject. Again, one can disagree but I don't see a "false claim" there either just a mistake on my part and a couple of items of disagreement (where the disagreement on Chetsford's part is whether the mention exists, while Fram disagrees about its relevance).

I could discuss the alleged CIVIL violations if any Admin wants me to, but I don't see anything in Fram's examples that is more defamatory than the comments he has made about me right here at AN, and continues to make. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That someone involved with a fanzine may also have had a few paid articles in other magazines is quite far removed from your claim that this is a professional publication, with professional editors, and that Anthony Cash is "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around". These are not simple disagreements, these are elements which show your total misunderstanding of policies and guidelines. So far, you have given and repeated severe misinterpretations of WP:BEFORE, WP:INVOLVED, WP:RS and WP:CIVIL. Feel free to start a section about my violations of WP:CIVIL, but the misdoings of another editor don't justify yours, so whether I have been uncivil or not is hardly an excuse for your comments about Chetsford in these various places. Fram (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The key paragraph from WP:RS is as follows: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. On Flames rising we have a reliable publication process producing reviews that are widely cited by third parties. We have authors who are widely regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, as I have documented previously. This isn't a "misinterpretation of WP:RS", it is what the policy actually says. The fact that WP:BEFORE is supposed to include, inter alia, discussion with contributors and potential contributorsto the article and consideration of a possible MERGE: if an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ... If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. I don't see where you or Chetsford have carried out either of these steps with any consistency, but anyway, I do think I understand BEFORE well enough.

As far as CIVIL and INVOLVED are concerned, I don't pretend to be an expert in either, except that I don't think Admin are supposed to !vote in disputes where they are INVOLVED. But, again, I don't pretend to be an expert. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly aren't an expert in WP:INVOLVED then. It deals with using the admin tools, not with giving opinions in debates like this one. If Chetsford was to block you, or if they were to close this discussion with a topic ban for you, then they would violate INVOLVED. Now, not at all. But you not only claim this here, but below as well. You are simply repeating over and over again some positive things about Flamesrising, but you still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that Anthony Cash is "widely regarded as authoritative" or "one of the most respected RPG reviewers around", despite this having been asked again and again and again. You claim that I don't do WP:BEFORE with any consistency, so let's check e.g. my most recent AfD creations in this dispute: 1[, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleBots (board game)|2]], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10... Consistent enough? Fram (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So, !voting on an Administrator's noticeboard discussion is not an administrative action, then? I am here to learn. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

<posted prior to Fram's response of 15:28 - 31 January> - To elaborate slightly, Fram says Contrary to this claim, the above section showed clearly that the only one introducing "fake news" into the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudships & Gunboats) was Newimpartial. No, Chetsford introduced information he should have known to be ungrounded when he referred to two reviews as incidental mentions in a single sentenceand then repeated the claim when challenged. In fact, seemingly he can't help himself, since in response to this AN thread, Chetford today made and then elaborated the claim, which he should know is untrue, that there are no references to the game in the three sources I cited even though Storytelling in the Modern Board Game: Narrative Trends from the late 1960s to today affords a mention (if only a brief one, as Fram has also noted, and the other offers a review - as Fram also now accepts - whether or not the review is RS. I do not know for sure why Chetsford does this, though I have described the process I believe to be at work. In any event, it is clearly Chetsford who seems to, in Fram's words, "deliberately make false claims at AfD" (or at least, claims they should reasonably know not to be true) and "continue to state they are right in the face of all evidence", which I referred to with the rather mild comment, FAKENEWS does not become you, which I have also subsequently explained at greater length.

As far as Fram's out of context quoting of me in the opening this section, I don't see how it could be construed as me "attacking" Chetsford - rather, it responds to issues raised by Chetsford and Nils about my previous comments concerning "button pushing". And I thought it was clear that in pointing to the previous ANI I opened against Chetsford in 2018, I was pointing readers to the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me (as well as his defenses and countercharges) so that those interested would have the opportunity to see the context for our current interaction, without my dredging up and documenting those old issues again (though Chetsford's drive-by comments here and here have obliged me to explain some of it anyway). Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fram's out of context quoting of me in the opening this section Care to elaborate? How did my quote gave a false impression, which the context would have made clearer?
• I thought it was clear that in pointing to the previous ANI I opened against Chetsford in 2018, I was pointing readers to the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me (as well as his defenses and countercharges) so that those interested would have the opportunity to see the context for our current interaction (emphasis mine) In a discussion of BOZ, you bring up another editor who has nominated two articles by BOZ, and given some barnstars to others doing the same. Fine, but why, when everything else is about BOZ, would you need to bring up "the body of evidence about my concern that Chetsford has been antagonistic towards me"? Evidence that Chetsford had been antagonistic towards BOZ, now that might perhaps have been relevant. But what you did is simply a personal attack, and even then not actully evidence of Chetsford being antagonistic towards you, but you being antagonistic towards Chetsford, since you opened the section about them, not the other way around. Basically, you are making up false excuses for your personal attacks. When in a hole, stop digging. Fram (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that I still have not communicated clearly. In the BOZ discussion, I was pointing to the 2018 ANI because, in that ANI, I presented a body of evidence of Chetsford being antagonistic (and disruptive) - generally but not exclusively towards me - such as making statements that are not literally true (and which he now acknowledges as deliberate but which I have been calling 'mistakes' here, per CIVIL). The ANI also included mentions of the BATTLEGROUND attitude he maintains by scorekeeping his gaming AfDs and the groundless and retaliatory AfDs he has launched against clearly notable subjects, such as the one against Monica Valentinelli and the one against Hillfolk - the latter being his intemperate response when I mentioned a narrative theory framework introduced in that book in another AfD. These actions seemed to me to be relevant context for his recent awarding of barnstars and his resumption of RPG AfD nominations that had him placing notices on BOZ's and my talk pages (which is why it caught my notice). I thought it more parsimonious to point to the 2018 ANI I launched than to rehash the evidence I presented there, since all I wanted to do in the BOZ heading was to give context to Chetsford's current "piling on" behaviour. I don't see how any of this is a "personal attack", and at the time I made the mention my only concern was to note what was happening to BOZ. The sole reason I have had to discuss Chetsford's behaviour further is because you made it an issue in this filing. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and the out of context quote was "Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above)." The contact for it was this:

AFAICT you just baldly mis-state one thing for another - often in your AfD nomination itself - because (a) you feel they are equivalent though you must know they literally aren't the same, and (b) you think it will help your argument if people are thinking about the second thing you mention. So literary games become "puzzle toys", three hundred page works of imaginative sub-creation become "instruction booklets", narrative histories become directories become "directories" and so on. And you don't mind if someone takes your analogy too literally and accepts your judgement at face value, because in your heart of hearts, that's what you want - for your POV to rule the day. Honestly, the strategy strikes me as Trumpian, which is why I posed the "False news" question, but the difference with your analogies is that my assertion was literally as well as metaphorically true (as supported by diffs above).

My comment, "the strategy strikes me as Trumpian" was based on points (a) and (b), so by removing my supporting evidence you made it seem like an attack, rather than an evidence-based comparison. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with reluctance, AfD ban only but time-limited to not more than 12 months. Oppose noticeboard ban. I abstained from the last of these consultations, but feel the situation has not improved in any meaningful way. We've previously established, by precedent, that !voting out of consensus at a high enough threshold at AfD can be disruptive (that threshold should be high to protect minority viewpoints, but by any measure Newimpartial has met it as they are currently out of consensus nearly a third of the time at AfD, a number that would be even higher if not for the No Consensus closes that are being forced by their !votes). The rationale at that time was that there are so few !voters generally that even one !voter who is chronically and wildly out of consensus can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. Additionally, in the preceding sub-thread, Newimpartial signals this is an area of intense stress for him as he notes that some AfD arguments "pushes [his] buttons" and that's the genesis of his unusual interlocutions. But the arguments he cites as triggers for him are fairly typical of the kind one will find at AfD, and will continue to find. A TBAN in this case, therefore, is as much of an editor welfare measure as it is about protecting the project. Chetsford (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford, I don't know whether you read my reply here, but you are no longer successful in "pushing my buttons" so the major premise of your (INVOLVED) !vote no longer applies (though I observe even today that you are still being deliberately provocative).

Also, I have participated in very few AfD's in the last 12 months, mostly because when I see a deletion posted and agree with the deletion I don't enter the discussion, as I don't have anything valuable to contribute. I only enter these discussions for borderline or remarkable cases, and there weren't many of those in 2019, so I don't see any evidence that I am somehow "disrupting" AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. However, the fact you find those diffs "provocative" actually reinforces my opinion that you do not have a good sense of proportion and are likely to continue to assume that even the most routine arguments in an AfD are part of a larger design or plan of which you are the target. Therefore, for reasons previously stated, I'm going to maintain Support at this time. Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As previously noted, in those two diffs at AfD you are doubling down on a statement you know or ought to know is false. Could you suggest a more apt term for that than "provocative"? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As you've been told endlessly by myself and others, diffs to your own posts declaring something to be "true" or "false" does not make that thing "true" or "false". Nor does your assertion that certain subject matter "pushes [your] buttons" remove that subject matter as a permitted topic for discussion on WP. It is the job of individual editors to conform to the community, not the job of the community to conform to the idiosyncrasies of individual editors. This discussion has evolved beyond the bizarre and there's obviously nothing more I can do to assuage your concerns, so I'm going to leave it there. I wish you the very best. Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As previously noted, in spite of your best efforts, you are no longer able to push my buttons, so I don't know what the content of that message is supposed to be. Your contribution clearly has "evolved beyond the bizarre", since what we are supposed to be discussing is your INVOLVED !vote on a topic ban and, instead, you are opining on what "true and false" mean and the importance of "conforming to the community". One part of WP:CIVIL, to which we should all conform, is that editors not make unsupported allegations about other editors, and that we focus on content rather than personalities. Perhaps that is where you could start. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose retaliatory BS. Fram's attempted bullying of BOZ got dismantled and now he's trying to attack the person who dismantled it. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Fram's attempted bullying of BOZ got dismantled"? The AfDs are continuing and continue to get closed as delete in the vast majority of cases, BOZ is still cleaning up his worst undeletions (and ignoring his WP:INVOLVED violations), his copy-paste AfD votes have been criticized by quite a few experienced editors by now... How exactly has my "attempted bullying" then been "dismantled"? Fram (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this thread is an outcome I predicted more than a year ago at one of the past instances of Chetsford v. Newimpartial, and/or Chetsford vs. tabletop roleplaying games. I observed here that "[Chetsford's] approach to content within this topic is being viewed by people with an interest in it as going out of your way to insult them," and I was not at the time referring to Newimpartial solely. This was shortly after Chetsford referred to one RPG guide as a puzzle book ([36]) (i.e. a children's toy), compared another to a deck repair manual ([37]), and insinuated that one publisher of these guides was no more than a producer of novelty t-shirts ([38]), and was apparently clueless to (or didn't care) how these statements would be offensive to an enthusiast. Chetsford has for some time given the impression that they dislike this genre and want to reduce its coverage, and that colours their interactions with other editors in the topic. That's not all on Chetsford, of course, but their continuing to pull at the loose threads here suggests maybe they're leaning into that persona a little more than is beneficial to the project.

In the August 2018 discussion, someone who was not me suggested that if Newimpartial were to face a ban from deletion discussions, then Chetsford should face a ban from the topic of roleplaying games. Another suggested the same RPG ban along with a mutual interaction ban for both editors. Personally I think that second idea has renewed merit given that this is still an active conflict 18 months later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An IBAN may be an idea worthy of considering. Insofar as a two-way IBAN goes, however, I'll just note that in 48 of the last 50 pages in which we've both edited (excepting this noticeboard) less than 24 hours apart, Newimpartial arrived only after I first commented [39]. The extreme intensity of interest Newimpartial has shown in me is not something I have actively sought (and, as the interaction analyzer shows, is not one mutually shared) and I would be delighted to enjoy less of it since it largely consists of extended denouncements of my competence and/or intelligence (e.g. here [40], here [41], here [42], here [43], here [44], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no desire to interact with Chetsford, either, but his support for a possible IBAN (mutual or otherwise) represents not only an INVOLVED comment but also (perhaps ironically) a GAMING violation, since my interaction with Chetsford takes place almost entirely on AfDs that he has launched, the articles nominated, and the Noticeboards called upon in those deletion discussions. A look at our interactions in 2019 and 2020(subsequent to the previous ANI discussion) shows (1) none of the discurtesies Chetsford noted, all of which relate to my participation up to 2018 (and which I have recognized and apologized for) and (2) our interactions are almost entirely in and around AfD, and of Chetsford's three nominations in which we interacted in 2019, only one resulted in Deletion. From this I conclude that an interaction ban would be unlikely to benefit the project - possibly preventing me from adding relevant deletion sorting categories or making clarifications of relevant policies. A TBAN for Chetsford from gaming-related articles, or from AfD, would seem to be approaches that would more fulsomely protect the health of the project while preserving the areas where Chetsford's contribution is a net positive. Newimpartial (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Invanvector, an interaction ban (possibly with a double topic ban) may indeed be best. I note that Newimpartial is still using WP:INVOLVED completely incorrectly in his above reply (an admin commenting on or supporting an IBAN that involves themselves is not an "INVOLVED" comment). As far as the "discurtesies" go, I have listed their attacks on Chetsford above, so that's an incorrect claim again. They are still dropping policies left and right in the hope that no one will notice that these pages don't realy support their claims, e.g. "per WP:ENC the most notable game system using Tri-Stat rules is the most appropriate merge target." (in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Stat dX). At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phage Press, apart from the tireless "core policy" drops (what are non-core policies?), they are adding sources about the merge target, not about the article up for deletion. Their snipes at the nominator and "policy clarifications" in that discussion are hardly helpful for a fruitful discussion. So, yes, your proposal may be best here. Fram (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fram, you do understand that when the objection to a Merge is the Notability of the Merge target, then the GNG sourcing of the Merge target is the key policy-relevant question? And the other question is whether verifiable information exists to be merged (per WP:V)? These are precisely the issue×s I have been addressing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phage Press. As an Admin ex-admin, I would expect you to be familiar with this already, but it seems to surprise you as much as the relevance of PRESERVE to a Merge !vote.

And I'm afraid that the "Attacks" you've alleged I made in Chetsford have remained quite unproven, with your most recent example [45] relying on out of context quotation. But perhaps you have some policy-based CIVIL concerns to share? Newimpartial (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Canadian open proxies

About the report linked in the title that goes back to last week, I'm reporting the following update. A user registered a new account yesterday evening, and 2 minuts later he used it to restore one of the edits made by the anonymous proxy-user. Here it is:

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

The duck test should be enough to consider him as a sockpuppet of the YapYapChubbyDoggy who was blocked because it was created and used by a vandal who tried hiding himself behind open proxies which are currently blocked. I suggest checkusers, however, to control his logs, in order both to strengthen the behavioural evidence and to eventually find out the new proxies he's using now, while if he isn't using any more proxies but his real IP address(es) it should be possible, in case he continues creating new sockpuppets to escape from the block over and over, to temporarily block his IP range to prevent further abuse. For the moment, blocking this new sockpuppet may be sufficient. --151.21.79.143 (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to follow up on this yesterday but I have blocked the user as obviously a sock of YapYapChubbyDoggy (talk · contribs). Checkuser results were  Inconclusive as expected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:BOZ

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

There are some problems with many of the edits and actions by User:BOZ. They mainly belong to three categories:

• Creation of articles on non notable subjects. This has been going on for more than 10 years now, and the number of AfDs and Prods that already ended in a delete or redirect is quite impressive (with many, many more articles to be checked yet). I don't know of a tool to check how many creations by an editor have been redirected afterwards, they are not included here[46]: at the moment, of his 3600 creations (about 750 in 2019 alone), 180 have been deleted, and many others redirected. Many more are at AfD now, and new ones are started almost daily. This includes not only his oldest creations, but also a lot from late in 2019, things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dankendismal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game)...
• AfD votes stating "Keep or merge to X" without any reason for the "keep" given, or without addressing the arguments from the nominator or other delete votes. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanny (comics) (where they then created a redirect which was discussed and deleted immediately afterwards as well, see here), but also all his other recent AfD comments: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]
• Restoring articles which were deleted after AfD, and where they were involved either as part of the editing history, or by having voted "keep or merge" in the AfD. E.g. they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fathom Five (comics) as the lone "keep or merge" vote, so when that article and its redirects get deleted, BOZ restores the deleted redirects[61][62]. BOZ has extensively edited Lathander, which gets deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander (2nd nomination). BOZ restores it. Karsus was deleted in 2008 a a copyvio, then recreated, and deleted in 2019 after AfD. BOZ restores the page, with inclusion of the pre-2008 copyvio parts[63]. The same happens with Angharradh, repeatedly deleted including for copyvio, restored completely with the copyvio. This was a page (re)-created by BOZ in 2008, so not only restoring copyvio but also a clearly involved action to restore the history of a page, deleted at AfD, which they had created in the past.

All the above is from his very recent history (last month or thereabouts), but the pattern continues through the years. I first contacted BOZ about this last year, in User talk:BOZ/Archive 2019#Notability of your creations, which had only some temporary result, as can be seen from the AfDs for recent creations. So I started User_talk:BOZ#Notability of your article creations two weeks ago. This improved for now the creation of the articles, but seeing the problematic behaviour at AfD, the problematic use of his admin tools as described above, and the thinly veiled canvassing by listing all the AfDs for his articles at the user talk pages of others[64][65][66][67], ... I would like some uninvolved admins to step in and make it clear what is acceptable and what isn't for all these areas. Fram (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

One can sort this list by the size of the page at creation and thus distinguish a redirect that was a redirect from the get-go from a redirect that started out as an article. It doesn't seem like many of the articles were redirected, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Unless I'm misreading something, content was merged out of Bloodtide into something else. That would make restoring the history appropriate for attribution purposes. I completely agree that reversing the other AfD results by fiat was completely inappropriate since there's no attribution history to preserve for those. The Ctrl-C Ctrl-V "keep or merge" nonsense is annoying but benign since nobody pays attention anymore and AfD is not a vote. As for the canvassing, yeah, I agree that it is. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Asking for help to find sources and edit an article that is at AfD is not the same as asking for votes. While canvasing is always a concern, getting help to improve an article that is at AfD isn;t a problem in itself. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If I have restored content inappropriately as outlined above, then I apologize for my error; let me know what needs to be done and I will fix that and try to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. I do not believe I have violated WP:CANVASS after reviewing the policy, as I have never, and will never, ask or expect another user to participate in such AFDs, and I have only ever asked people for assistance in finding sources who have proven skilled and interested in doing so on similar topics. Note that under "Appropriate notification" it mentions that a user can place a message on the user talk page of "concerned editors" and gives examples such as editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), and editors known for expertise in the field, and I believe that both User:Guinness323 and User:Sariel Xilo qualify for some or all of that. If I am incorrect in my reading of the policy, then I will cease asking for help in finding sources.

As for the rest, well I am and always have been a prolific content creator. I am not as attached to articles I created as seems to be suggested by Fram, in fact I do not always !vote in AFDs on them (see the second two of the three mentioned in the first paragraph). I also edit many other articles that I did not create, and I do not personally consider those any more or less "mine" as the ones I started. I have had a feeling in the last few weeks of a growing hostility towards me from Fram, and I have mostly tried to ignore his comments, but it seems hard to avoid him escalating what could be a non-situation resolved simply through discussion or by avoiding unnecessary conflict. I have had a growing dread that I was being set up to be the next victim of a WP:FRAMming (that's not a verb, is it? Maybe it should be?) and I hope that I am wrong about that. I would like to think that my contributions have been a net positive to the encyclopedia, but if you listen to Fram that would seem not to be the case. For the past two weeks or so he seems to have been aggressively focusing on me, possibly to the point of WP:HOUNDing, but again I am hoping that is not the case. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• And then you went and voted the same "keep or merge" here, here and here. Your actions are not a "non-situation", you have created hundreds of articles on non-notable topics over the course of a dozen years, and don't seem to know or care about major aspects of the notability guidelines, admin policy, AfD expectations, ... I am not hounding you as in involving me with everything you do, I have only started AfDs (or redirected similar articles), made a few comments on your talk page, and now started this (I have !voted in 1 other AfD about an article you created IIRC). But when I notice a persistent problem, spread over many articles, then I will usually not ignore it and leave it to others to clean it up. WP:SOFIXIT and all that. That you have made many good contributions is not disputed: but this doesn't mean that a blind eye should be turned to the many problematic edits. Fram (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I create articles based on the sources I have on hand. I go back and add more sources later after I find them. Maybe someone else will add sources to the articles I created. I add sources to articles that other people created. Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia. I am not upset by you wanting to delete articles that I created, but if I have another suggestion such as merging then I will make a recommendation. If you feel that going through all of my contributions by yourself is a monumental task that makes you upset or angry at me, then that is a matter of your perspective. I do not do anything on Wikipedia with the intention of upsetting Fram (or anyone else). Badgering me will not change my perspective, nor will trying to publicly shame me. I work on what I like, and what makes me happy, and I would like to think that everyone does the same thing, but I see negative attitudes from time to time that leads me to think otherwise. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "That is how notability works on Wikipedia". Uh, no. You, as the article creator, are responsible for the articles you create wrt notability. Creating articles about subjects where you don't know if they are notable or not is irresponsible (at least for experienced editors, we all have a learning curve). Your pages are autopatrolled, since you are an admin, which means that they get less scrutiny than most other new pages. But creating pages which are not suitable for enwiki gives a bad example and creates additional work (AfDs, DRVs, deletion, ...) and sends the wrong signal to other editors as well. Continuing to add material which you know (or should know) not to be suited for enwiki is disruptive editing. Restoring thousands of pages without caring whether you are "involved" and/or going against consensus, and without taking care to only restore appropriate revisions, is disruptive as well. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Here we have rather bold generalizations based not on policy, but on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. There is no evidence of a pattern of BOZ consistently "creating articles about subjects where you don't know whether they are notable or not". Of the hundreds of recent creations, all have at least one RS attached - often print era sources such as Dragon reviews - which suggest at least a reasonable probability that there are other RS reviews in print and therefore notability. These are not BLPs and so, per NODEADLINE, there is absolutely nothing wrong, per policy, in creating such articles - stubs even. That Fram refers to policy-compliant content creation strategies with which they happen to disagree as "disruptive" is a deep violation of AGF and civil, and while restoration of COPYVIO or PA versions of pages is potentially a serious matter, neither "creation of articles on non-notable subjects" nor poorly explained votes at AfD would ever be considered "disruptive" or policy-compliant grounds for censure.
      • On the other hand, CIVIL violations and poisonous conduct are potentially quite a bit more serious. And Fram has engaged in a consistent pattern of bullying towards BOZ (as in previous instsnces), such as the condescending dismissal of Space Gamer as a source here and the scathing dismissal (while failing basic reading comprehension) here of the notability of articles that were subsequently Kept at AfD. This at a time when User:TTN is sending five articles to AfD from BOZ's area of contribution each and every day. The overall affect of Fram's attitude will undoubtedly be felt, adding to the "body count" of contributors previously driven away by Fram's expressions of attitude. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Not sure if I was tagged because you wanted a comment or just out of courtesy, but I'd say this is ultimately the culmination of what I'd describe as a "hoarder house" style situation. I believe BOZ in good faith just wants to document D&D on Wikipedia, but many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia. The space has mostly refused to evolve outside of some standout articles. He does seem to do plenty of good work in the supplement book articles that are actually improved to current standards. The D&D space has been plagued by years of back and forth swings of article removal and restoration by both himself and anonymous users. The only actions I'd note that seem less than honest are that he either logs out to restore a lot of these articles to avoid attention, actively works with the person who restores a lot of these articles anonomlously, or tacitly approves of the person restoring the articles without taking any editorial action to follow WP:N. The editing style of the logged out IPs are fairly consistent with how he edits. He clearly wants to retain the status quo. TTN (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Yes, that was a courtesy tag.
          • And now, another admin, with a documented history of deliberate antagonism, and who has launched a new mode of BATTLEGROUND, has decided to pile on while engaging in some premature grave dancing celebration. Has any admin at WP (besides BOZ) heard of not bullying, or are the tools poisoned somehow? Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Fram You mentioned above that BOZ left me a list of AfD articles. I'm a relatively new editor but if you go back to June/July 2019 on my talk page you'll see that BOZ doesn't just leave me AfD article suggestions. Since Summer 2019, they've been suggesting all sorts of RPG/game articles that need help (mostly with sources) that they thought I might be interested in. I'm fairly decent with research if a topic has an internet presence or at the very least finding the names of obscure out of print titles that I can direct an editor towards if they want to take the time to find them offline. You'l also notice that I don't follow up on everything they suggest. I pick and choose based on interest, time and what I find when I do a basic research sweep. If I think I can contribute to an AfD or another article, then I do. I'm not a short order cook for BOZ blindly voting in AfDs nor do I think BOZ is canvassing my vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I think this is my first AN or AN/I thread, thank you, thank you very much, happy to be here. ;) If I have erred in my judgement in any areas it could be that I have not been called out on it enough yet? I am open to addressing legitimate concerns, so thank you to anyone willing to discuss. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If nothing else. WP:INVOLVED is a pretty bright line, occasionally even ArbCom material. And although much of the other stuff (canvassing, ATADD, etc) is merely behavioral, it all adds up to being BIZARRE. ——SN54129 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I see what happened with Lathander, and some of the others. The List of Forgotten Realms deities was deleted after AFD, and many articles has been previously merged into that list, so their edit histories were deleted along with the list. I restored the edit histories of those deleted articles and merged them into Forgotten Realms, and I will admit that I probably did not check to see if any of them had been deleted for legitimate reasons, and therefore I created an appearance of impropriety through carelessness. I went ahead and deleted the edit histories of the ones mentioned in the initial post, and I again apologize for that.

As for the two articles that were previously merged into Fathom Five, that was a similar situation when I restored those histories, and I do not see a problem with those unless I am missing something. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to do this all the time. Zann: it was created in 2005, and deleted (correctly) as patent nonsense then (full text: "No lo conosco... "). You created it again in 2013 as a redirect (no problem there). The redirect target was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities though, in which you voted "Keep or selectively merge" (of course), and the redirect was deleted at the same time (as is usual). So you restored the page (which violates WP:INVOLVED since you created it in the first place), including the three revisions speedy deleted as nonsense. You restored dozens of pages which you had created or expanded. You restored Akadi, including the copyvio first edits. Fram (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Zann and Akadi would have been part of the same set of articles I mentioned above, so I deleted the edit histories of them as well. Again, I am sorry about that. If there are others, I will do the same with them. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Then please go through your contributions and correct them. It shouldn't be up to others to fix (or even find) your mistakes once you are made aware that they happened repeatedly. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am making my way through all the articles I restored, and deleting the edit histories of any articles that were previously legitimately deleted prior to that AFD; so far, I have found that most had never been deleted prior to that point. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had to delete the edit histories of several more. I am pretty embarrassed there were that many. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you continue this effort, as there are still more of the same, like here where you restored an article where all revisions were deleted as copyvio. Or this one, right before that, where you restored seven revisions which were an A1 deletion, a G11 deletion, and again a G12 copyvio deletion. Other ones are less problematic but still completely pointless, like this one, restoring an A3 deleted page (full text: "lol"). These three are consecutive entries in your restoration log, so it seems like there is still a lot to be rectified and that this carelessness has been a constant factor for months or years. Fram (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I redeleted the bad edits from those. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I will find time today to continue in my log and see if there are more problematic restorations like those, and eliminate the bad diffs. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW just talking about the particular content created (the first point) - I think BOZ makes lots of good content - BOZ has created 11,588 pages, with 520 since deleted. 3,597 of which are articles, with a 5.1% deletion record of 185. From my experience working with BOZ, they look through a particular entry of an old magazine, and then see which games or other items don't yet exist on wikipedia, and create a stub. Would this be better if it was a fully fledged article? Yes. Would it be just better with a couple more sources? Absolutely. There are definitely some very notable items on the list, so I don't think this is cut-and-dry. I certainly wouldn't want to deminish an editor because they have a poor hit percentage.

The second point is a little bit less serious in my eyes. AfD isn't a vote, and if they don't provide any rationale, then it can be simply be overlooked. Is it great from an administrator to not supply reasons for voting in a AfD? Not at all. But, realistically, the issues would hopefully be overlooked by a competent closer.

The third point is the most serious. I suspect BOZ just doesn't really check the status of an articles history when creating, but it's very unlikely that these subjects will suddenly become more notable. INVOLVED is clear here, but I would suggest to BOZ to be a bit more careful when creating new content in the future that they aren't involved, and that the act of creating the article doesn't overstate a previous AfD. (non-admin comment) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Lee. I appreciate your comments here greatly, and will take all of that into consideration. I will definitely do my best in the future to avoid using my tools on articles where I have been involved in anything more than a cursory way. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having worked on some of these RPG articles, I think there is a problem with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The community's views on this kind of cruft are clear and patience wore thin a long time ago, but the "locals" keep going anyway, either because they don't know, or don't care.

As one example, look at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Boz mentions that this level of mind-boggling detail (a 300k list article for a specific aspect of a commercial product-line) lacks widespread support, referring to "the PROD treatment" and dismissively saying "and you will never satisfy those who only want deletion".

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters cites this obscure book over thirty times, mainly because it's the only secondary source anyone could find for most of the hundreds of entries in the list. I think most people on that talk page, including Boz, are sincere in trying to share useful information, but it's also hard not to see this as gaming the system.

These are commercial products which are being promoted by Wikipedia. This is not good scholarship, it's native advertising, and that's a serious problem. We have hundreds or thousands of examples of crufty articles for RPG books, or just RPG... concepts, like fictional places, fictional gods, fictional species of monsters... These keep getting created, and recreated, and AFD'd, and so on, and many never see a single usable source. Anyone who is sincerely paying attention will realize what the pattern is. It's not that "we only want deletion", we want reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ehhhhh I'd hardly call it advertising. 2nd Ed became obsolete in 2000 with the release of 3rd, and we're up to 5E now. Nobody's making money off of obscure monsters and out-of-print splatbooks. This kind of content is more of a holdover from WP's early days, when we were largely populated by enthusiastic nerds who wanted to write about everything they loved (dragging myself here too) and didn't have anything like the sourcing-based notability standards that we have today. Not saying we should keep these, mind - just pointing out that calling it native advertising is not quite fair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "native advertising" is an exaggeration, but it's still functionally a form of promotion. It's not the individual products that are being marketed, it's lifestyle branding. Hasbro bought this property for a reason, and that reason includes decades of cruft like this. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• As a frequent AfD closer, I can confirm at least the problem with BOZ's argument-less AfD "Keep or merge to X" votes. I now routinely disregard them when closing, but they are disruptive. (There are, to be fair, also some editors I recognize as regular "delete" advocates, but they normally give reasons, if only a reference to WP:GNG.) Maybe we should think about whether BOZ should continue to contribute to AfDs. Sandstein 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, if it helps, I will try to always include at least one policy in my response to AFD going forward. I don't mean to be disruptive, and honestly did not think I was being disruptive, but I certainly do not want to leave that impression if I can help it. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd like to second Sandstein's comments. Perhaps you may also want to explain why that policy/guideline justifies the course of action you propose. I used to routinely ignore AFDs with the "Keep or merge to X" !votes as they are unhelpfully vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't know, at this point I am going to give up on trying to make excuses for myself as I feel like I am only making myself look worse every time I say something, and so I will surrender to whatever decision the community wants to make regarding me. I have come to realize that I have a pretty sub-par record as an editor, stuck mentally in the better days of Wikipedia where people were not so concerned with deleting so-called "non-notable" content. There is nothing I can do to turn the tide on how the community has changed, and it only gets worse every day, and probably one day almost everything I ever created or helped create will be deleted. I will try to limit my editing until this thread is closed, so as not to dig my own hole any deeper than I already have. I doubt I will respond further to this thread, so whatever needs to happen to me is probably whatever needs to happen to me. This is stressing me out to no end, so further participation is not going to be good for my mental well-being. I do have some things I promised to clean up, so I better get to that while I am still allowed to do so. I will accept whatever decision the community makes regarding me here. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think changing "keep or merge" to "keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" shows that BOZ has really gotten the message, as this still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all. Doing this simply every time[68][69][70][71] shows, well, I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here, but it sure doesn't look good. Fram (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that a "Merge per PRESERVE" !vote is just about as valid a policy consideration as there is on WP, and the fact that Fram doesn't recognize it as such (with a condescending I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here), when it conflicts with his priors, says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fram, Sariel Xilo, Serial Number 54129, Lee Vilenski, Grayfell, Premeditated Chaos, Sandstein, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Shall we start discussion on whether or not to topic ban BOZ (who is an admin) for the greater good of the world, and whether or not BOZ should be desysopped? ミラP 17:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given the above, I'd support a topic ban of BOZ from AfDs. Just adding "per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" to a pure vote at AfD does not make it any less of a vote, because all it says is "don't delete because we shouldn't delete content". AfDs are not votes, but discussions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To contribute to such a discussion it is necessary to address why the specific article at issue fails or meets any of our accepted standards for inclusion such as WP:N or WP:NOT. BOZ is an administrator, and as such is expected to understand how AfDs work. Mechanically copy-pasting the same statement in all AfDs they participate in reflects either a serious lack of compentence or disruptive intent. Sandstein 17:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping Miraclepine; I support a Tban XfDs for BOZ per Sandstein, whose reasoning is complete. ——SN54129 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You're welcome Serial Number 54129. Should we start now? The sooner the better. ミラP 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notification Miraclepine; If a ban is necessary, I would suggest a time limit. I've never been part of discussion like this so I don't know what is standard (6 months, a year, etc). I would also suggest limiting the ban to voting. If BOZ can contribute (finding/adding sources, etc) to the article under AfD, that seems fine and then they just won't be part of the AfD discussion itself for the duration of the ban. I also wouldn't want BOZ to be banned from discussing the existence of AfDs elsewhere. For example, back in November I asked for BOZ's help in running down some sources on a AfD and we kept that discussion on my talk page rather than the AfD because it was a bit off topic. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• As the context here is that BOZ is having an awful lot of his articles nominated for deletion, a flat tban on XfD at this time seems pretty harsh. That's not to say these !votes are up to snuff, but taken on their own they're not much different from what we see from a bunch of other users whom we've repeatedly declined to tban (and whose !votes are simply routinely ignored -- or should be). BOZ, arguing that something meets GNG is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps if you simply commit to making a serious case for GNG when you argue as such, we can avoid this tban business. e.g. a minimum of something like "Keep - passes WP:GNG as seen by [source 1] [source 2]". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have considered Boz's AFD behavior (blanket "Keep or merge" without rationale for (almost?) every single AFD nomination they partake in) and high output of stubs/substubs with 1-2 sources cited (forever thinking about that Mage: The Ascension or w/e RPG supplement article that said nothing beyond that the supplement "adds options for players") to be very problematic for an admin for a while now - the AFD behavior in particular comes across as disruptive or lacking in understanding of how the process works - but did not have the energy to start a thread like this on my own. I want to reiterate that this is not about me wanting to PROD everything, or that I will only be happy when all of Boz's work is removed from WP, or that I have a vendetta against them, or whatever - it's that I care about notability and sourcing, and about our administrators' understanding of the processes they partake in, and think something needs to change.--Alexandra^IDV 01:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Creating articles is not a crime. Arguing to keep those articles at AfD is not a crime either; it is to be expected. If the articles or arguments seem weak then that's not unusual either; the nominations and other votes at AfD are often weak too because WP:BEFORE is not followed and editors fail to research the topics in exhaustive detail due to constraints of time, access, understanding, &c. All these issues are the routine stuff of AfD and the inclusionist/deletionist divide. If mistakes are made, this to be expected too because our work is not perfect nor is it required to be.

Myself, I've seen BOZ in various AfDs and he's always seemed to be remarkably soft-spoken and well-behaved. Given the extent to which his work has been threatened with deletion, his good-natured behaviour seems quite commendable. Other editors create a lot more drama in such circumstances...

The issues in question seem mainly to be a matter of notability but WP:N is a guideline not a policy and its vagaries and inconsistencies are well-known. Resolving these is a work-in-progress, far from complete and is never likely to be an exact science. Punishing editors for work written 10 years ago seems outrageous in such circumstances – see ex post facto, nulla poena sine lege, &c.

So, while BOZ doesn't seem to be doing anything especially unusual or wrong, Fram's behaviour seems more serious. They were lately sanctioned and desysopped by Arbcom. Findings included issues of "harassment" and "following another editor's contributions". Fram had commented that "I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches" but here we see them going back up to eleven again by intensely focussing on the work of another good-faith editor, tracking their contributions for years and attacking them. How is this behaviour any different from what has gone before? Perhaps Fram still has something to learn too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• This entire discussion is unnecessary. User:BOZ has created articles on details relating to topic areas that are, at their higher levels, clearly notable and of substantial interest to many people. Role-playing games and the entire fantasy genre, while easily dismissable by those whose interests are more focused on other topics, are important topics for coverage in an encyclopedia. How much influence has Dungeons & Dragons had specifically on popular conceptions of the mythical hero's journey, and on the idea of what various kinds of "monsters" look like and act like? I don't know if that can be quantified, but it remains the case that these are not purely frivolous topics, and some really are sufficiently notable and well-referenced. Many others really are suitable for merging into articles giving broader general coverage of the topic area. In my view, BOZ has done nothing actionable. BD2412 T 23:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Andrew and BD2412. Attempting to punish an editor for good faith actions, some of which are a decade old, in a total gang-up is exactly why this project bleeds editors. The totally needless hostility and hounding deserves to be ignored completely At the least, even possibly result in a WP:BOOMERANG as this is along the lines of uncivil behavior we've seen before that has lead to so much drama. All because BOZ doesn't toe the line of some individuals' vision of the project. No action should be taken. None. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• I want to add onto what I said in m y previous post and make it clear that 1) I do not have a vendetta against RPGs - I am personally interested in the topic, and play Vampire: The Masquerade on the regular, and am currently preparing for a Dusk City Outlaws campaign. I often hold back on creating articles on topics I would have liked to cover just because there is not enough RS coverage to justify it or to even support the content. 2) D&D being obviously notable does not mean that every RPG topic is. No one has any problems with the D&D article existing, and it is irrelevant to the minor RPG classes, creatures and supplements that are discussed 3) the AfD issue I have has nothing to do with whether Boz is well-mannered and soft-spoken, and all with how an admin copy-pastes the same non-argument to every AfD - which is not the same as making a weak argument) 5) This is not something that just happened 10 years ago, it still happens in every AfD Boz partakes in 6) I have absolutely no interest in "punishment", I just care about solutions to continuous problems. If "Boz, an admin, should explain why something is notable and not just copy-and-paste 'Keep' in every AfD" is the outcome of this, that's not a punishment by any means.--Alexandra^IDV 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Alexandra IDV seems to have participated in few AfD – just six, acccording to this tool. The only one in the last year was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis Mundi: The Book of Spirits. BOZ's !vote in that case doesn't seem to be a cut/paste as it addressed the state of sourcing for the bundle of articles in question. Nobody agreed with Alexandra's proposal to delete them all and so BOZ's position was the consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Alexandra is very knowledgeable in policy, and very active in the content area, so please do not attempt to gloss over her points due to low AFD numbers. I 100% support her stances in her last two comments. I too have been long troubled by BOZ’s sloppy article creation and !votes at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see Boz as a good faith editor. And I do not see their actions as disruptive. I would not support any TBANS or blocks etc. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Despite what Bilby (talk · contribs) said above, posting AFD notifcations on the talk pages of these two is very clearly vote-stacking, and is highly unbecoming behaviour on the part of any experienced editor, let alone an admin. As can be seen to some extent in my !votes here, here and here, I am somewhat sympathetic to a number of the keep !voters in a lot of these types of AFDs, largely because of my own DnD and/or Forgotten Realms nostalgia, but I can see quite clearly that old-school gamers who understand and like these topics are divided on how Wikipedia should cover them, while a significant portion (most?) of the keep !voters seem to be career "keepists" with no interest in or knowledge of this topic area, who are using it to "one up" the deletionists they see on every corner. Wikipedia has changed over the last decade or so: heck, I was the original creator of the article BOZ !voted to keep here, but in 2020 I couldn't possibly support the argument BOZ made there and seems to still be making. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I remember when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born. In those days, the Internet and PCs did not exist and so the sources are now stacks of dusty magazines which take time and effort to go through. Young gamers may not appreciate the difficulty of documenting the early years of this field. Cue the four Yorkshiremen ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt you remember when DND was new: the phenomenon was extremely niche in the 1970s (only 4,000 copies of the original game were printed in its first two years) and became more popular (and controversial in some circles) in the 1980s, which is why virtually all of the third-party pop culture references date to more than half a decade after the game was first published. Do you mean that you "were alive in 1974"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Heck, I started playing in the (very late) 70s and went to GenCon in 1981, so yeah, that's not "the start" but pretty close. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it probably wasn't worth responding to Andrew in the first place; he has a tendency to pretend to be intimately familiar with the subject-matter of whatever article is at AFD; I have fairly eclectic scholarly and entertainment tastes, but I can't imagine anyone being an expert in all the things Andrew has claimed to be an expert in. This, plus the fact that he's proven himself time and again to be completely ignorant of the area I'm most familiar with (Japanese religious and literary history) while those who devote most of their editing efforts to Indian topics have told me that he is doing pretty much the same thing there, makes me extremely skeptical whenever he claims to have been into something since before I was born. But I figured it would be best to attempt to dispute him on the facts rather than his own thoroughly demonstrated editing patterns, and the fact that you consider yourself to be an OG with regard to DnD (and I wouldn't disputing that) while not having been there when it was "new" supports my initial assertion. (Also, Andrew did say when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born -- emphasis added -- everyone knows I was even born in 1988, and while "many" is a bit vague I think most readers would be reluctant to interpret it as meaning "7 or 8" -- he clearly looked up the initial release date of the original set, over a decade before I was born, and claimed he "remembered" it, presumably because he remembers things like the 1974 FIFA World Cup, the Nixon resignation, and various events of the Troubles.)

There's also the fact that age and ability to remember pre-3E DnD isn't really relevant, nor is the fact that the original game predates the general availability of the worldwide web and so would likely be covered in early issues of Dragon and various fanzines better than in online sources, when most of the nominated articles actually relate exclusively to much more modern aspects of the games; of the eight articles listed here, only two relate to topics that date to 1993 or earlier, and of the eleven red links the only three relating to properties I recognize definitely could not have been produced earlier than 1993. (The fact that I only recognize 3/11 speaks less to my lack of familiarity with gaming culture in general than the relative obscurity of the properties, mind you.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I bought and played the first edition of D&D quite soon after it first appeared. Having been introduced to it at a UK convention, I picked up a copy for myself at the Games Centre, iirc – a specialist store in central London which opened around the same time. I'm very familiar with the history and personalities of those days and suppose I should do more to help BOZ document them, as I still have an extensive archive and library of offline material. Andrew🐉(talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I have no way of verifying that. All I have to go on is the relative unlikelihood that someone who doesn't seem to ever edit Wikipedia articles on these topics except when they're at AFD would have been one of the 4,000 or so people worldwide who owned a copy in its first two years of publication, and the fact that I know you have in the past falsely claimed to be familiar with things like the origins of Yayoi culture in Japan and the relationship between western prosimetry and the Japanese uta monogatari in order to "win" AFD debates. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To verify this, all Hijiri88 would have to do is visit a London Wikimeet where I could show some vintage sources from those early days. At the last Wikimeet, which is something of a book exchange, someone was passing on a book about haiku. I had a flip though it but went for Essex Schooldays instead, as it seemed to have nostalgic charm. Having first-hand knowledge of topics isn't much use on Wikipedia because that tends to be OR and POV. Last night, at the games club, I was comparing notes with other old-timers about where they picked up their first edition copies of D&D, back in the day. They had some good anecdotes but then we got on with our more recent game. It has an article on Wikipedia because it's easy to find reviews and commentary about it using the Internet. That topic doesn't need my help. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the details except to say that "all Hijiri88 would have to do" is pay hundreds if not thousands of USD equivalent in airfare and accommodation, and disclose his real world identity including personal appearance and perhaps even name and contact details (home address?) to someone who has previously (on or around 10 March 2019) indicated an intention to pursue a vindictive agenda against me is an extremely onerous ask. (Also worth noting that on the same date Andrew actually, privately, indicated an unwillingness to disclose any form of evidence that he understood "Asian stuff" as much as he claimed in various AFDs, so his claiming now on-wiki that this is not the case is clearly disingenuous. I will forward the email, which admittedly came from FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) rather than straight from the horse's mouth, to anyone who requests it.)

Also, haiku have nothing to do with waka, at least not any way that would be meaningful in the context in question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that, Hijiri. It's not OK to pass around private communications willy-nilly. Save it for an ArbCom case, since the committee can usually be relied upon to respect private correspondence. That said, Colonel Davison absolutely is the kind of person to threaten someone IRL over WP disagreements. Reyk _YO! 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: I meant to say that I would pass on the email only if I was requested to provide evidence of what I was saying. The reason for that is that I am accusing another editor of foul play on AN and technically we are not supposed to do that without evidence, but I can't very well publish the full text of the email. It's not exactly a secret that the email exists and that the reason for it was something Andrew said. Given this context, I don't think it's appropriate for Andrew to be publicly calling me out and saying what effectively amounts to "Come on, Hijiri ... come and tell me your real name and contact details, and take a picture with me ...", and my pointing out in the same public forum why I find that inappropriate can hardly be considered a problem in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Hijiri 88 I firmly disagree that BOZ discussing AfD on my talk page is “vote-stacking” for several reasons:

a) Even removing the AfD for an article I created from the 8 AfDs I participated in, you’ll see in the majority of AfD discussions I contribute additional sources & article improvements if I’m voting keep.

b) I subscribe on my watchlist to the following alerts so I do independently find & participate in AfDs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts‎

c) BOZ and I discuss all sorts of articles that need improvement on my talk page from drafts & AfC to AfD & PROD. Discussing whether or not I’ve been successful in finding sources for an article under AfD isn’t soliciting my !vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'll admit to not reading all the words above but:
  • Number 1, I have a COI here. I've worked with BOZ off and on for years and met him once in person.
  • I know of no other editor who is more dedicated to Wikipedia.
  • Yes, the !votes at AfD he gives do get old and I too largely ignore them (sorry BOZ). BOZ could stand to work on forming arguments for each AfD.
  • Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap.
  • Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. Doing so to vote stack is not. Given that folks he pings often do dig up hard to find sources and that I trust BOZ to do the right thing, I'm on the side that there is no issue here.

So yes, I agree there is some substance to the complaints and BOZ could learn from a lot of this. But he's a heck of a contributor and I'm thrilled to call him a wiki-friend. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your points all seem reasonable, and I have to say that I personally find BOZ a lot more tolerable than many of his defenders, and would probably get along well if I too met him in real life, but I must question whether Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. is the best reading of what happened here. Are the editors more likely to go to the nominated articles and improve them so they meet WP:HEY, or go to the AFDs and !vote, perhaps linking GBooks results without a careful analysis of whether they could be used to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I guess you'd have to look at how often those pings result in new sources being found. I know that I've pinged WebWarlock, S Marshal, and BOZ on occasion for sources on gaming articles when I was fairly sure they'd have access to sources I lack. If BOZ regularly pings people who then proceed to !vote without providing sources, that would sound like a problem. If they are providing sources a fair bit, I'd say it's reasonable. And again, I've got a bias, but I find it really unlikely that BOZ would try to game the system. It's just not really something I think he'd do (perhaps AGF taken to an extreme), though if you had evidence that pings were resulting in !votes often and sources very rarely, I'd be willing to agree there was a problem. In general, I don't think we should be trying to prevent people from asking others to help with sourcing unless it's clear they are just trying to game the system. But I'm fairly far on the inclusion side and think that improving articles is much better than deleting them and so honest attempts to do so should be met with strong support. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, Boz has received 12 prods or AfDs on articles, and the number in the last week is much higher. To be honest, I don't see how Boz could hope to address those concerns, at that rate of nominations, without asking for at least some help on sourcing - even if you assume that Boz isn't going to contest a decent portion of those. I'm not sure I've seen someone get as many AfDs for old articles in such a short time before. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hobit:: "**Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap." This is not what the complaints above were about. BOZ did restore the history, often for articles they had created and/or voted keep at an AfD (i.e. violating involved), and in many cases also restoring history deleted for other, serious reasons like copyvios. As for the many nominations on his page, last year he created 60+ pages per month, many of them about non notable subjects. Cleaning out this mess has been avoided for way too long, and as far as I can tell he hasn't addressed any nomination by finding and adding a source. He is not obliged to do this, and in many cases there are no other sources in the first place, but the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations. Fram (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a rather basic point, but AFAIK most of the deletions of Boz articles concern rather old content creations, and most of his new ones carry RS citationsand meet NBOOK and/or the GNG. The simple equation above, the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations this appears to be fallacious, at least if the term "rate" implies some unit of time as a denominator. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: From what I can tell, this discussion is focused on his conduct relating to the deletion of said old content, not how good his new content is. No one who was actively editing before, say, 2009 can today be held accountable for the poor sourcing and notability standards throughout the project back in the bad old days, unless they are actively defending their old edits from those who are trying to bring them inline with what English Wikipedia has become. (See my "Evermeet" remark further up.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial and Hijiri88:, this is just as much about recent content. There are a number of ongoing AfDs for articles created in 2019 and 2020 and others have already been deleted. All of the following are (now deleted) creations from between 22 November 2019 and today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized (2 articles), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Maps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Rooms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Tracks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Magic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Horizon: Escape, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptic Campaigns, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critter-Tek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life. That's 12 articles already deleted from that period, with others redirected (Citybook VI: Up Town, Star Trek: The Next Generation CCG Official Player's Guide, Southern Gondor: The Land). I doubt we have many established / autoreviewed editors with this kind of negative track record in their very recent creations. Fram (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But Fram, you were talking about rates. How many articles did you say BOZ had created in "2019 or 2020"? Was it a three-digit or a four-digit number? You need a denominator to calculate a rate.

And there are some frankly crappy AfD contributions (and results) in the links you just gave, with lots of "Delete per nom" and no evidence of BEFORE. As has been noted by others, the reliable, secondary sources in this field through the 1990s were in dead tree magazines, which are not easy sources to find but are entirely valid RS when found.

In his recent contributions, BOZ has been assuming presumptive notability based on a single review. That isn't policy, but it also isn't so far off reality given that if you can find the Dragon review there is probably another RS review that you can't find and which - if the topic in question is a book - establishes NBOOK notability quite nicely. The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles isn't something to take out on BOZ.

BOZ creates non-book articles based on the same criterion as for books - with which I don't generally agree - and he isn't as prompt as I would be to merge articles about the books that made up a "game line" back in the day. However, these are nits to pick and don't undermine the fact that, whatever else he has dome, BOZ is engaged in creating sourced articles in the RPG space and is a clear net positive for the project. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In every one of these AfDs, an online search for sources was done (general, and additionally specifically in books). This is explicitly included in the nominations. WP:BEFORE only applies to nominations, not to subsequent comments, and all noms followed WP:BEFORE. "The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles" doesn't match the reality of these AfDs. Furthermore, Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing, since these subjects have received very little attention when new, and none (from reliable sources) since then, unlike truly notable subjects. The reasoning that "if there is one review, there probably are others" is rather iffy of course. As for the rates, I didn't bring this up, Bilby did, I just responded. In any case, the 12 deletions + 3 redirects were from his last 100 creations. If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. Fram (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So where in policy is this "10%" rule established, anyway? In the present climate, I think a content creator who retained over 80% if their creations in userspace after a year would be doing pretty well, frankly.

And in terms of the !votes, the most frequent case seems to me that you make the nomination, one other user checks your findings, Sirfurboy gives a "per nom" and bob's your uncle.

So in terms of the quality of your BEFORE, let's take the Dark Ages Storyteller's Screen (an AfD I didn't see at the time because nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories). I also note that of the delete results you linked, this one of only two to receive a (supposedly disruptive) BOZ !vote. Neither you nor your single supporter seem to have given any serious effort to finding the inevitable reviews that any such product generated at the time. Instead you describe it as having "sunk to oblivion since", which is a clear violation of NOTTEMPORARY.

Now I'm not saying the Screen needed its own article. The policy-compliant choice would have been to Merge it to the article on the game line, if only to preserve the reference. But instead we had a non-policy-conpliant SUPERVOTE and you are now smugly citing the delete result as evidence of another contributor's alleged incapacity. I can't see your actions in this case as making a positive contribution to the project; from here it looks like boundary maintenance for it's own sake, which by itself would be grounds for a BOOMERANG IMO. But I recognize that other factors are at play. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please drop the personal comments or start the WP:BOOMERANG section? That AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts. I searched for additional sources, just like I did for all of these, and found none. You claim, without any actual evidence, that my "before" search was clearly insufficient. So perhaps you can do the checks as explained in WP:BEFORE point D, and show us the results I should have gotten which clearly show notability for this subject? If not, then perhaps you should stop accusing people without evidence. Oh, and no, I doubt there are many experienced content creators who get 10% of their recent creations deleted. I have 1.3% deleted (but these turn out to be new pages created by someone else, which I moved to a correct title, thus creating a redirect, not an article: of my last 1000 actual articles, not a single one was deleted), Ipigott has one or two of the last 1000 deleted, GiantSnowman has 0% deleted (in his last 1000 articles, there are 5 deletions, but they all are G7 deletions without an AfD or Prod as far as I can see), Rosiestep (last 1000 articles: 0 deletions, only a few redirects got deleted)... But feel free to list those other experienced content creators with deletion rates over 10%, I presume you didn't make that statement without any evidence to back it up surely? Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you intend, by goading me to create a BOOMERANG section, to make some kind of pivot from my analysis of these AfD's in terms of policy? If so, that seems like a novel approach. And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? Also, creators who purposely create articles on more obscure subjects (or those to whom the AfD community is hostile) will have higher deletion rates, inevitably, so there isn't even a correlation between deletion rate and content competence without controlling for subject area. And someone with thousands of creations on rarefied topics is going to encounter some borderline cases, if they are doing it right.

As to your other comments, inclusion of a page in a project listing is no substitute for thematic deletion listing, as you should be well aware. And the sources listed in BEFORE, point D - while I'm glad they are no longer being ignored at AfD - have never been sufficient for finding dead-tree RPG reviews, as I thought you were also aware. They don't even include the index of dead-tree (or paywalled) Pyramid reviews, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? " Coupled with the remainder of your comments (you are the one who started about a wp:boomerang, and apparently people shouldn't just follow wp:before, but what you believe to be minimum requirements) I'm done replying to you. Fram (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Fram: you said above Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing which is a pretty big assumption. As one of those editors, I can honestly say that I'm busy IRL and didn't look into most of what BOZ asked for help with. I tackled 2 articles (not under AfD) because I'm familiar with that specific game system & knew exactly where to go to find sources. I don't have time right now to familiarize myself with new game systems & where their typical sources live. That doesn't mean those sources don't exist. If I look into something and I don't find sources, I say something (either on my talk page or if relevant in the AfD discussion ). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Undeletions

I think it is time to take a different approach, because BOZ has now said things like I give up and has not been seen for days at this thread. BOZ, the first steps we need you to take are fairly simple. Some legitimate concerns have been raised about your undeletions. I provide you below with a table of those undeletions. Could you review each undeletion in light of the feedback received here and, for each one, report back whether you wish to rethink it or not?

Long table

Undeletions by BOZ in the last 36 months No. Article Undeleted (ago) Reason 1 Thermal Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 2 Spoilsport (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 3 Steel Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 4 Dark Horse Miniatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 5 Istishia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 6 Savras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 7 Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 8 Tymora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 9 Selvetarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 10 Ilmater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 11 Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 12 Zann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 13 Angharradh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 14 Karsus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 15 Lathander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 16 Iron cobra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-21 7 days [not provided] 17 Iron cobra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-21 7 days [not provided] 18 Adventurers of the North - Kalevala Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-10 18 days [not provided] 19 Kalmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-10 18 days [not provided] 20 Ancient Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-07 21 days [not provided] 21 Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-06 22 days per request on my talk page; AFD was closed as redirect, not delete 22 1995 Origins Award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-01 27 days [not provided] 23 Bloodtide (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-30 29 days [not provided] 24 Dragonrider (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-30 29 days [not provided] 25 Digital Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-27 32 days moving the edit history 26 Istishia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 27 Lathander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 28 Leira (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 29 Karsus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 30 Valkur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 31 Shaundakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 32 Auppenser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 33 Shiallia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 34 Angharradh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 35 Hoar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 36 Siamorphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 37 Uthgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 38 Vataqatal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 39 Zann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 40 Najm (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 41 Jisan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 42 Jauhar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 43 Haku (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 44 Hakiyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 45 Hajama (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 46 Sharindlar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 47 Zehir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 48 Ragarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 49 Drasek Riven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 50 Nobanion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 51 Savras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 52 Sharess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 53 Lurue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 54 Jergal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 55 Sess'Innek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 56 Garagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 57 Milil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 58 Waukeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 59 Sune (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 60 Red Knight (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 61 Tempus (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 62 Eldath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 63 Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 64 Bala (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 65 Kor (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 66 Ubtao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 67 Moander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 68 Selan (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 69 Tchazzar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 70 Gwaeron Windstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 71 Talos (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 72 Malar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 73 Loviatar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 74 Kossuth (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 75 Lliira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 76 Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 77 Grumbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 78 Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 79 Tymora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 80 Myrkul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 81 Ghaunadaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 82 Torm (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 83 Finder Wyvernspur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 84 Talona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 85 Selvetarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 86 Kelemvor Lyonsbane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 87 Shar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 88 Ulutiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 89 Bhaal (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 90 Mask (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 91 Bane (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 92 Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 93 Cyric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 94 Velsharoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 95 Amaunator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 96 Auril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 97 Azuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 98 Beshaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 99 Chauntea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 100 Deneir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 101 Gargauth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 102 Eshowdow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 103 Gond (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 104 Iyachtu Xvim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 105 Ibrandul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 106 Ilmater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 107 Baravar Cloakshadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 108 Nebelun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 109 Callarduran Smoothhands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 110 Urdlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 111 Baervan Wildwanderer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 112 Segojan Earthcaller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 113 Gaerdal Ironhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 114 Flandal Steelskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 115 Gelf Darkhearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 116 The Glutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 117 Garl Glittergold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 118 Utgard-Loki (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 119 Paladine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 120 Valthonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 121 Chaos (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 122 Reorx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 123 Chemosh (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 124 Mishakal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 125 Gilean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 126 Nuitari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 127 Lunitari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 128 Chislev (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 129 Zivilyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 130 Night Sky of Krynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 131 Morgion (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 132 Habbakuk (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 133 Sargonnas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 134 Kiri-Jolith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 135 Solinari (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 136 Hiddukel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 137 Sirrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 138 Branchala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 139 Zeboim (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 140 Fizban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 141 Majere (god) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 142 Shinare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 143 Corellon Larethian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-15 44 days [not provided] 144 Demiurge (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-14 45 days [not provided] 145 Tazza (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-13 46 days [not provided] 146 Xemu (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-13 46 days [not provided] 147 Oshtur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 148 Hoggoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 149 Agamotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 150 Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-09 50 days [not provided] 151 Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-09 50 days [not provided] 152 Pipi & Bibi's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-15 74 days restored prior version, in case there is anything in the history and you might need  :) 153 Yagnoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 154 Ultroloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 155 Nycaloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 156 Mezzoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 157 Piscoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 158 Dergholoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 159 Hydroloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 160 Guardian daemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 161 Marraenoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 162 Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days splitting the edit history 163 Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days splitting the edit history 164 Berbalang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days moving the edit history 165 Achaierai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 166 Aranea (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 167 Alu-demon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 168 Kopru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 169 Thoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 170 Ghoul (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 171 Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 172 Genie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 173 Sphinx (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 174 Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 175 Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 176 Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 177 Su-monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 178 Giant frog (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 179 Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 180 Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 181 Ghast (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 182 Violet fungus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 183 Algoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-23 97 days [not provided] 184 Algoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-23 97 days [not provided] 185 Atropal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-09 111 days there are a couple of sources for this one, so it could be merged somewhere 186 The Fragile Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-09-25 125 days moving the edit history 187 Outcast (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-09-18 132 days this seems like a perfectly plausible redirect, so not sure why it was deleted? 188 Knull (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-16 165 days restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations 189 Absolute Carnage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-16 165 days restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations 190 Official Formula One Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-05 176 days restore - I have a source to add! 191 Sled Storm PS1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-02 179 days [not provided] 192 Talos the Untamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-07-11 201 days [not provided] 193 Chris S. Sims (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-07-02 210 days moving to draft; there was no significant opposition to draftifying in the AFD 194 Andro Dunos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-24 218 days [not provided] 195 Andy Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-24 218 days [not provided] 196 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-14 228 days [not provided] 197 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-14 228 days [not provided] 198 Felony 11-79 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-13 229 days [not provided] 199 Recoil (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-10 232 days [not provided] 200 Machines (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-10 232 days [not provided] 201 Street Sk8ter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-05 237 days [not provided] 202 Uprising X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-26 247 days restore - I have a source to add! 203 Halflife (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-23 250 days [not provided] 204 Emergency (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-21 252 days [not provided] 205 Death on the Reik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-21 252 days edit history under redirect 206 Superpower (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-19 254 days [not provided] 207 Team Losi RC Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-17 256 days restore - I have a source to add! 208 Warrior Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-09 264 days I have one review and will try to find more 209 Linkle Liver Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-08 265 days edit history restored, in case you find anything there you can use 210 Ultimate Race Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-05 268 days [not provided] 211 Star Trek Pinball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-05 268 days [not provided] 212 Forsaken (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-04 269 days [not provided] 213 Alien Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-04-29 274 days restore - I have a source to add 214 Dark Horse Miniatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-04-12 291 days restore - I have a source to add! 215 William Jones (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-29 305 days moving to Draft space 216 Steel Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days restore - I have a source to add! 217 Rock & Roll Racing 2: Red Asphalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days [not provided] 218 Courier Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days restore - I have a source to add! 219 Battle-Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-17 317 days [not provided] 220 Battle Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-17 317 days I do have one source 221 Gridz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-13 321 days moving edit history 222 Charles Alexander Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days going to move this one to Drafts 223 Charles Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days [not provided] 224 Ree Soesbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days [not provided] 225 Don Bassingthwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-05 329 days moving to draft 226 Fallen Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-05 329 days restore - I have a source to add! 227 Talos the Untamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-26 336 days [not provided] 228 Spoilsport (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days [not provided] 229 Dark Mother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days going to move for disambiguation purposes 230 Spoilsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days [not provided] 231 Spoilsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days splitting and moving the edit history 232 The Iceman Returneth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-09 353 days [not provided] 233 Thermal Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-03 359 days [not provided] 234 Jeff Morrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-01-10 383 days request on User talk:Jclemens granted by TPS  ;) 235 Riddle of the Sphinx (1982 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-31 393 days [not provided] 236 Alien Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-24 400 days [not provided] 237 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 238 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 239 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 240 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 241 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 242 GURPS Humanx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-11 413 days [not provided] 243 Tokyo Highway Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-25 429 days [not provided] 244 Alpine Surfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-21 433 days [not provided] 245 Gunblade NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-16 438 days I have a source to add; let's give this a shot 246 Namco Museum Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-16 438 days [not provided] 247 Jaguar Bomberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-06 448 days [not provided] 248 Solinari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-10-13 472 days [not provided] 249 Solinari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-10-13 472 days [not provided] 250 Dinotopia Adventure Game for PC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-23 492 days [not provided] 251 Shellshock (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-21 494 days [not provided] 252 Black Fire (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-15 500 days restore edit history under redirect 253 Black Fire (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-15 500 days [not provided] 254 Iron Soldier 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 255 Iron Soldier 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 256 Mighty Max (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 257 Quipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-09 506 days [not provided] 258 Quipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-09 506 days [not provided] 259 Bres (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-28 518 days [not provided] 260 Kileak: The Blood 2: Reason in Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-25 521 days [not provided] 261 FireTeam (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-23 523 days [not provided] 262 Curse of Dragor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-19 527 days [not provided] 263 Brutal Sports Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-17 529 days in case you find anything useful here 264 Toukon Retsuden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-11 535 days [not provided] 265 Space Griffon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-11 535 days restore - I have a source 266 VR Troopers (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-09 537 days I have one source to add 267 The Raft (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 268 Ryker's Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 269 Cube (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 270 Negative Zone Prison Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 271 Ravencroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 272 Seagate Prison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 273 Vincente Cimetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 274 Vincente Cimetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 275 Jude the Entropic Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 276 Shatterstar (Kree) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 277 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 278 Zweihänder (RPG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con 279 Zweihänder (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days [not provided] 280 ZWEIHÄNDER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con 281 Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-03 543 days [not provided] 282 Foreman for Real (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-02 544 days [not provided] 283 Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-01 545 days [not provided] 284 Shin Shinobi Den (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-26 551 days it's just a redirect... 285 Riverworld (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-21 556 days restoring to redirect 286 Web shooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 287 Spider-Man's costumes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 288 Stark Armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 289 Black suited spider man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 290 Man-Spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 291 Spider sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 292 Spider-Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 293 Spidey-sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 294 Bombastic Bag Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 295 Web-shooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 296 Man Spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 297 Web shooter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 298 Manspider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 299 Spider tracer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 300 Spider-Suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 301 Spider tracers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 302 Spider-senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 303 Spider-Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 304 Spider-sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 305 Spidey-senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 306 Spider-Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 307 Spidey Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 308 Spidey senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 309 Spidey sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 310 Spider Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 311 Spidey Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 312 Spidey-Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 313 Spider senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 314 Spider Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 315 Spidey-Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 316 Spider-tracers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 317 Spider-tracer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 318 Spider-Man's powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 319 Powers and abilities of Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 320 Spider-Man's Belt-Camera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 321 Spider-Man's black costume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 322 Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 323 Trek-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-12 565 days [not provided] 324 Trek-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-12 565 days splitting edit history; if the Judges Guild version is unrelated and mostly excised from the article, then let's do a split 325 Arcadia (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days [not provided] 326 Barbican (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 327 Anteus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 328 Elysia (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 329 Domina (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days [not provided] 330 Kalamanthis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-26 581 days restore edit history under redirect 331 Cosmic Race (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-23 584 days restoring as redirect 332 Cosmic Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-23 584 days going to start over using the old edit history 333 Jabbertalky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-22 585 days moving edit history 334 Static III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 335 Neo (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 336 Skitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 337 Skitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 338 The Harpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-18 589 days [not provided] 339 The Zhentarim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 340 Red Wizards (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 341 Red Wizard of Thay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 342 Red Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 343 Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 344 The Red Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 345 Red Wizards of Thay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 346 Moonstar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 347 The Moonstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 348 The Kraken (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 349 The Kraken (D&D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 350 The Kraken (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 351 Harper (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 352 Cult of Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 353 Hover Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-12 595 days I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least 354 The Watchmaker (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-07 600 days maybe some of this could be used to build an article one day, even if the original execution was poor 355 Santa Fe Mysteries: Sacred Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-05 602 days [not provided] 356 Alexandria Safe-Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-26 612 days restore edit history under redirect 357 Castle Darkhold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-04 634 days Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Darkhold was closed as merge, so that is what I'm a-gonna do 358 The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-04 634 days Articles for deletion/The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) was closed as redirect, so that is what I'm a-gonna do 359 Motocross Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-04-24 644 days I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least 360 Burning Soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-04-07 661 days wow, went to AFD after 7 minutes and died a quick death... I have one review, let me see what else I can do 361 Kung Fu 2100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-27 672 days [not provided] 362 Wilderlands of High Fantasy (old) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-16 683 days [not provided] 363 SORAG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-03 696 days moving edit history 364 Clacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-16 711 days [not provided] 365 Clacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-16 711 days [not provided] 366 Project Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-11 716 days [not provided] 367 Korred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-07 720 days [not provided] 368 Korred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-07 720 days [not provided] 369 Trump (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-01 726 days [not provided] 370 Trump (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-01 726 days [not provided] 371 Darklon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-27 731 days [not provided] 372 Darklon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-27 731 days moving all but the disambiguation edit 373 The Simpsons Trading Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-25 733 days previous version of article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Trading Card Game 374 Mark Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-12 746 days [not provided] 375 Star Sisterz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-07 751 days restore old version of this article

Can you also clarify why you are undeleting so many pages without giving a logged reason? AGK ■ 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The unexplained restoration of copyvio history & demonstrable misunderstandings about notability guidelines (i.e. I create articles based on the sources I have on hand... Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia.) are very concerning and should be grounds for de-sysopping. You would never accept an RfA with those policy/guideline failures. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  A demonstrated poor understanding of basic policies. Misuse of tools to undelete articles, overriding community consensus. Even without undeletion, this poor an understanding of notability should be reasons to worry, as admins are autopatrolled. To top it off, I see that an attempt was made to intimidate Fram bringing up the past, before others joined in to echo the concerns. This is very troubling. Short of a desysop, in addition to a tban on AfD, I think a tban on directly creating articles may be necessary. Not many people patrol autopatrolled articles from admins, a few who might, seem to be seen as harassing if they do so with any regularity on a single user's contributions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Even when a reason is given, "found a source/review, let's see what i can do"(paraphrasing) doesn't sound like a responsible reason especially when an "article is nominated within minutes and dies a quick death"(paraphrasing). I am getting the sense that admin tools are being used to further the inclusionism ideology, in essence viewing it as a power weapon in a war rather than a mop. I don't understand the silence. If it were an interpersonal conflict, silence would be a constructive approach to descalation. The issue is admin actions and adherence to policies, ADMINACCT requires them to address the concerns raised by the community. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool BOZ appears to be going through the table AGK made line by line here: User:BOZ/undeletions and responded to AGK here: User_talk:BOZ#AN. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• @BOZ:, can you please also indicate in your replies if you were in any way involved with the article prior to the undeletion? E.g. with Sharindlar (number 46 on the list), you had created the page initially, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharindlar, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities (to which it by then was a redirect), and at its DRV. Reading your comments at User:BOZ/undeletions, you seem to think that the undeletion by you was fine here, but WP:INVOLVED is a rather bright line. Similar at Myrkul, which you extensively edited, commented at the AfD, but restored anyway, including a first version with the full text "you suck" which was correctly speedy deleted. This is #80 on the list, so one you already checked. Fram (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just so that I understand you, Fram, are you suggesting that underlying to recover Talk page history or to move text out of article space to find new sources coubts as "acting ... in a dispute" per INVOLVED? Because as long as the versions involved are free of COPYVIO and personal attacks, I would think that PRESERVE applies, which is itself a core policy. I don't see such cases as participating in a dispute, unless I'm missing something. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Content disputes are also disputes. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (emphasis mine) An AfD is a prime example of a dispute on a topic, i.e. whether it should be included in enwiki or not. If someone has created or significantly edited an article, and/or if someone has participated in an AfD or DRV or the like, then that person is involved in the sense as described by WP:INVOLVED. This is one of the rather clear rules for admins: either you edit and disuss an article, or you admin it. Only for blatant stuff (vandalism) is this generally ignored, but undeleting a page you have created or argued to keep is a bright line violation, even when done with good intentions, and even if uninvolved admins would have done the same if you asked them. Even ignoring this, if "the community" has decided that an article doesn't belong here, i.e. that the content is not appropriate for enwiki, then WP:PRESERVE wouldn't apply. Preserve means "Preserve appropriate content.", but an involved admin is not the right person to decide, against the community consensus process an AfD should be, that some content should not be deleted but preserved.

If you don't believe me and my lengthy explanation, you can read WP:TOOLMISUSE (which i just like "involved" also policy): "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins." Additionally: "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation." As far as I can tell, these reversions were usually done without such consultation.

This doesn't make BOZ in any way evil or less dedicated, but it should be made clear that all these policies apply to them, and that not even mentioning which restorations violated WP:INVOLVED gives the impression that they don't understand or care enough about this aspect. Fram (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, just so that I understand you - are you saying that the moment an admin has created or edited a page or participated in an AfD, they are ipso facto party to a content dispute and INVOLVED so that they cannot use the tools in any way either respect to a page? Because that isn't how I read INVOLVED (or TOOLMISUSE) at all, and it looks like a violation of NOTBURO.

As I understand it, the point of INVOLVED is that admin are not allowed to use the tools to "win" content (or conduct) disputes. Userification of deleted content does not in any way strike me as an abuse of the tools, and to say that PRESERVE does not apply, say, to the referencing of an article that was deleted for WP:N, PROMO or COPYVIO reasons seems to me to be an inversion of the meaning of all the related policies. If content is reliably sourced and can be preserved (without violating other policies like COPYVIO and BLP), then it ought to be preserved; once again, boundary maintenance by deleting sourced content we don't like is not WP policy, regardless of one's personal inclination. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note - it appears that, rather than responding further here, BOZ has elected to document his undeletions here, as explained here and here. He is acknowledging and fixing his mistakes as he goes through the list: whatever the context of specific past misdeeds, I think we can all agree that this is how the tools are meant to be used. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I'm seeing one copyright issue, which when raised, BOZ fixed and apologized for. I agree that was a significant error. I'm finding an argument that creating articles that later get deleted is a sign of incompetence. That I'll disagree with. BOZ has certainly done some things wrong and it looks like he is taking the feedback seriously and addressing the issues. His AfD votes have also been addressed (need context and actual arguments). However, I can't blame him for not returning to this discussion to be further raked over the coals and instead working to fix the problems he has created (and hopefully not doing again). I think it's time to stop and see if the actual problems (and there are a few) continue from this point onward and drop the stick for now. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hobit, there were at least five copyright issues listed explicitly in this discussion alone, Karsus, Angharradh, Akadi, Dark Horse Miniatures, and Steel Reign (and there were others unlisted, like Savras, Tyr, Tymora and a few others). It is good that you try to defend an editor you like (and who does a lot of good work), but this is now the second time in this discussion that you have done this by completely misrepresenting the facts (see my reply from yesterday to you for the other instance). Please don't. Fram (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I previously decided to stop posting in this discussion several days ago, but I have had an opportunity to calm down and reflect on myself. Hopefully we can continue to have a calm and reasonable discussion from this point forward. To address the complaints above, I have decided to modify my approach on a forward-going basis, as follows.

I have greatly reduced my efforts at article creation and have begun focusing such remaining efforts on topics which I know to have multiple independent reliable sources, and will continue to do so. While my philosophy does have room for articles to be built over time to show notability, I do not want to force anyone to have to deal with debating the notability of many such articles.

I have paused all activity at AFD for now, and my most recent edit in that area[72] on Jan 27 was not even a vote. At some future point after having fully reevaluated my approach, I will make sure to only add substantive responses in the form of full sentences with links to relevant policies, and when I cannot do so I will likely not be involved. To avoid the appearance of canvassing, I will not ask anyone to find sources on articles currently at AFD and I have instead reminded them now of how they can keep track of these discussions themselves.

With my undeletions being probably my most controversial actions, and the subtitle of this section, that deserves the most thought and work on my part. I have come to realize that while I did not intend any harm with my actions, I have still caused harm and therefore been irresponsible with my tools. I have been going through the list above to find edits that should not have been restored by an admin, and when I have completed that task I will re-evaluate the list again for my involvement in the topics in question and how I may have run afoul of the involved admin policy, because I see that is an important topic worth a greater level of examination. I found that going through the list line-by-line has been very therapeutic even if it is not always easy to examine my own actions to see where I can find fault. The list above has 375 entries from the past three years, and I am about halfway through, and I found that the first half of that list was all from the past three months. The trend I noticed is that most of those restorations were on former articles that had been previously redirected to lists, and the lists were recently deleted at AFD, so I restored the full edit histories of the redirected articles and then redirected them to more durable articles with the thought that there may be something in the edit histories useful for merging since they were previously merged somewhere else. In doing so, I did not review the deletion logs and inadvertently restored copyvio edits, content that had been deleted at prior AFDs, and other problematic edits, so I have redeleted those edits as I find them. I will examine the remaining half of my restorations next week, which covers the other 2 ¾ years of that time period, so there was definitely a change in the rate of my restorations recently which was just a trend with a degree of collateral damage.

There is a lot of work left for me to do, and I am not done, so thank you for being patient and allowing me the time to work on this. I will return to this discussion periodically to report my progress. BOZ (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• All sound good to me. That said, I think if you know someone who likely has sources for an article and you don't ask them, you are doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia. So while I get the idea of managing appearances of canvassing, I'd urge you to not stop seeking sources. My two cents. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RhinosF1 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, RhinosF1 is unblocked.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#RhinosF1 unblocked

It's gonna be awesome banned; repeated block evasion

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome/Archive

Considering the many repeated sockpuppets created for block evasion, this user should be noted as community banned per WP:3X. Pinging User:Yamla who noted they were "arguably" banned some months ago. By my count, there have been three more CU-confirmed socks since then (& cu currently pending confirmation of one more). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a clear-cut case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome/Archive provides unambiguous justification to consider them banned; WP:3X applies, and means we don't need to discuss it here. It's exactly the sort of situation WP:3X was designed for. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is unambiguous but I'm following the directions at WP:3X: If the user made substantial good faith contributions before being banned, a notice should be placed on the administrators' noticeboard alerting the community to the ban. -- Bri.public (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your good work on this. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Main Page technical update has been enabled

Please consolidate any issue reports to Talk:Main_Page#Tech_update_has_gone_live. Should there be a serious disruption, any admin should revert my edit to Main Page without waiting to discuss it first. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Lifting autoblocks

I know I should not lift a checkuser block without consulting with the blocking administrator. I know I should not lift a regular block, either. However, I generally assumed it was okay to lift an autoblock without consultation, so long as that autoblock was not the result of a checkuser block or a block for sockpuppetry/block evasion, and if there was no meaningful overlap in edits (via the Editor Interaction Analyser) and if the autoblocked account looks legit (not recently created, history of productive edits, etc.). Autoblocks have a limited lifespan, and this can be a bad experience for constructive editors, so I believe it's appropriate to just quickly lift the block, rather than consulting with the blocking admin. Am I correct, or am I acting inappropriately here? --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me. We need to avoid collateral damage.-- Deepfriedokra 21:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can lift an autoblock affecting unrelated editors if it did not come from a {{checkuserblock-account}}. Autoblocks can affect innocent editors if a dynamic IP gets reassigned to another person or if the blocked editor uses a public IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that we are currently warned, when lifting an autoblock (non-checkuser), "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. You also may not undo any blocks that are labelled as a CheckUser, Oversight, or ArbCom block without consulting a(n) CheckUser/Oversighter or the Arbitration Committee. Unblocking accounts inappropriately may result in you being desysopped." I believe this warning is meant to apply to regular blocks and especially to checkuser/oversight/arbcom blocks, rather than the autoblocks I'm talking about. --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If it's an autoblock resulting from a checkuser block I would say you should (must?) consult with the checkuser team. It's unlikely to be a mistake and they would be in the best place to evaluate whether the disruption is likely to occur again. If it's not a checkuser block and you're confident, I'd say go for it. In any case, if an editor is being affected by an autoblock or hard block and you feel the need to resolve that asap, you can grant an editor the IP block exemption user group (subject to the guidelines at Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrator's_guide) which will allow them to bypass the autoblock. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) It was my autoblock Yamla lifted. Off with his head! Didn't bother me a bit, saved me from looking at it, and I got pinged, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• There's no real downside to consulting a checkuser if you're unsure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request by User:Eranrabl

Eranrabl (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

The Arbitration Committee received a standard offer unblock request from Eranrabl and seeks community input as to whether the request should be granted.

I would like to request to be unblocked. I have followed the conditions laid in the standard offer and didn't edit English Wikipedia at all (not using any other account (not that I have any) or anonymously) during the last six months.
Should I be unblocked, I voluntarily take to avoid editing any BLPs (with which was the problem surrounding the block), and concentrating on one area of editing, which is also my main subject, Israeli football (league seasons, football teams, etc.).

Further (14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC))

"I understand that I was blocked for sockpuppetry and I am committed not to do such a thing again"

Eranrabl’s talk page access has been restored for the purpose of answering questions related to this request.

Another procedural note: the request was part of a backlog, so it is actually longer than 6 months absence at this point. –xeno^talk 15:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Point of clarification: The actual ArbCom-banned account appears to be SuperJew (talk · contribs) and Eranrabl seems to have been a sock of SJ. Will SJ remain blocked/banned? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't understand the ArbCom discussion that took place, and if it took place why this request is necessary (since Xeno is a member). SuperJew was confirmed to Eranrabl and CU-blocked, the block on SJ was lifted per AC discussion. So, @Xeno: is Eranrabl a different editor than SJ and on what basis are we deeming them to be different if the technical data was the same? --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) As I understand it, these two (SJ/ER) were eventually deemed unrelated to each other. SJ was unblocked a long while ago. –xeno^talk 16:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Is there some on-wiki discussion towards the same conclusion? Or off-wiki evidence that was discussed and should be discussed here, because this seems very pertinent to the unblock request at hand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  The committee was convinced that SJ/ER were distinct individuals and the unblock request may be evaluated in that context. –xeno^talk 16:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Clarification of the Point of Clarification: I was blocked in error, and subsequently unblocked by Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) saying "After lengthy discussion, our consensus was that we believe there was not strong behavioral or technical evidence to show that your account was involved with the Eranrabl situation." as you can see in my talk page archive. You are also welcome to read the unblock request and UTRS sections in which users attest to myself and Eranrabl not being the same user. Respectfully, --SuperJew (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. I'm sorry that I dragged your name through some very old and mistaken mud. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Appreciate the clarification, I'll add a comment to the archives page so that it's less misleading. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's even more complicated than that. Assuming the Committee was right and that Eranrabl is not the same person as SJ, that doesn't mean that Eranrabl did not operate other accounts. He consistently denied it, but (a) I found that he did, (b) so did at least one other CU, Ponyo, and (c) the Committee, to whom he also appealed, unlike SJ, did not unblock him. Note further that he continues to deny having ever socked. @QEDK: I'm not sure it's a good idea to update the archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't yet since I wanted to be sure as well. It's a binary option, though, right? Either they are the same user or they are not. Pinging Premeditated Chaos who made the unblock, if the committee is/was sure they are different editors, surely it was not based on technical data unless it was not CU-data, quoting PMC — ...we believe there was not strong behavioral or technical evidence... which conflicts with your and Ponyo's CU-data and behavioural data overlapped as well (per SQL and a somewhat rough analysis by me). Unless there's more evidence shown, surely we cannot have a fair hearing for this request. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused by your comments, but, regardless, we don't normally "update" SPI archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'm simply saying PMC's statement conflicts with the evidence we have at hand. And surely we don't modify archives, but your finding in the archives stands as "Confirmed" whereas the statement (as a member of AC) states that there is a lack of strong technical evidence, which is again, contradictory. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, it's not. In any event, please leave the archive alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, I can't say much because the unblock was based on discussions made on the mailing list, which is confidential. What I can say is what I posted to SuperJew's talk page: we believed, based on discussions about the evidence, that SuperJew was a distinct person from Eranrabl and should not have been blocked in the first place. We did not find any of the rest of the Eranrabl sock-blocks, or the block of Eranrabl himself, to be incorrect. With regard to how that conflicts with CUs marking someone as "confirmed": remember that CU is not magic, and its operators are human. The raw data can be misleading (particularly in small countries), and errors do happen, which is generally the conclusion we came to about SuperJew getting caught up in it. IIRC we don't typically update SPI pages after any kind of unblock, because the SPI serves as a record of the CU's checks and conclusions. (I don't hang out at SPI very often, so I could be wrong about that, but I believe that's the rationale.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, alright that sounds okay. That also means I'm not comfortable making a call either way in this unblock request (did not edit the archive as I said), so let's leave it at that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. My principal reason is that Eranrabl has taken no responsibility for their actions. Standard offer or no, I cannot support an unblock request from a sock who denies having socked (and I am not speaking of SuperJew).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the block was imposed for sockpuppetry, not editing of BLPs, and the unblock request denies that there was any sockpuppetry. There are 8 checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of Eranrabl, if that's accurate (which is for ArbCom to determine) then I would expect an acknowledgement of this and a commitment not do it again. Hut 8.5 11:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Eranrabl in response to the above comments wrote "I understand that I was blocked for sockpuppetry and I am committed not to do such a thing again". –xeno^talk 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Xeno: That statement is vague at best. Does Eranrabl acknowledge that he operated multiple accounts in violation of WP:SOCK? Do they acknowledge the eight accounts in the category? Were there more?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, you say that Eranrabl "wrote"? Where? The last contribution they made on en.wiki was from 2018. You restored TPA. Why aren't they using their Talk page to respond as is conventional?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• They wrote to the committee. I’m not sure why they aren’t using their talk page or the answers to your other questions (@Eranrabl:). –xeno^talk 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

xeno, I’ll send you an email, but I think you should stop posting email responses and let them engage on their talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and TonyBallioni: Apparently my last 'allow tpa' didn't "take". Talk page access now allowed. –xeno^talk 15:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support IMO this was a bad block based on faulty evidence and should have been reversed a long time ago. As detailed above, the initial claim was that Eranrabl and SuperJew were the same person. This was eventually cleared up, but for some reason only SuperJew was unblocked. Behavioural evidence strongly suggests that Eranrabl and the other accounts in question were not related (Eranrabl rarely edited player articles, which is where all the alleged socks were causing trouble), and (as shown by the disproved claims about SuperJew being a sock) the technical evidence was clearly flawed. As a result, it's not a surprise that he denied socking (I suspect the 'confession' above has only been made as he thinks it is the only way to get the ban overturned). Eran was a productive editor who should be welcomed back. Number 57 15:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, have you seen PMC's comment above? Although we did come to the conclusion that Eranrabl and SuperJew are two different people, we did not find issues with the technical evidence connecting Eranrabl's other socks. If you have seen it and just disagree, that's fine -- just want to be sure. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: Yes, I have, but as you suggest, I still disagree. I got involved in this shortly after Eranrabl and SuperJew were originally blocked for being related accounts, as it was (to me) clearly done in error – I crossed paths with both on several occasions through edits on Israeli football and there was no behavioural evidence for socking, other than the fact that they edited in the same topic area. Thankfully this was eventually realised, but only SuperJew was unblocked. Based on the behavioural evidence, IMO there were three parties involved; SuperJew, Eranrabl, and a third editor who operated all the other disruptive and blocked accounts. There was virtually no crossover in the types of edits made by Eranrabl and the other group of accounts, which were SPAs that changed nationality-related information on Israeli Arab players; in contrast Eranrabl's edits were almost exclusively on league seasons – I cannot see any potential reason for him socking in this way. He was a productive editor and a loss to Wikipedia. Number 57 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for verifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I don't follow. The block has nothing to do with SuperJew. The log is erroneous. He's still blocked because he's still confirmed by checkuser to have created at least eight different socks, as explained above. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: The log (I assume you are talking about the block log?) is not erroneous. SuperJew was originally accused of being a sockpuppet of Eranrabl and was blocked at the same time as Eranrabl. His block was eventually lifted several months later. As well as the faulty technical evidence, there was a highly dubious accusation made by the blocking admin that there was "pretty damning behavioral evidence" that the two were the same person (they had overlapped on 67 articles – at the time I had overlapped with SuperJew on over 700 articles!). Number 57 22:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay but regardless of any of that there's technical evidence confirming that he created at least 8 socks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, wasn't there technical evidence on SuperJew as well? Just as an example on how the internet can be funky, last time I was in Israel, I got a text message on my mobile phone welcoming me to Palestine and switching me to some other IP and mobile provider. Who knows how the system works. Consider that in the US all T-Mobile IPs are blocked because of vandalism (or something like that) it's not that hard to consider that a few IP's at a university share common parameters. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer : TheGracefulSlick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs) has been a productive editor in the past, particularly in the areas of '60s rock and military history, and he's got numerous Good Articles under his belt. Just over a year ago, he was blocked for not voluntarily staying away from controversial areas, including WP:AP2 and WP:ARBPIA and breaking the community's trust. So he's considering the standard offer.

This tune sounds familiar, but what's different now is that TGS has grown up a bit and interacted more with people in the real world, giving him an understanding on how to resolve conflict. He's still a damn good writer, which I don't think is in any doubt, and we shouldn't kick them out unless there is an unanimous agreement that the disruption outweighs the content. In this instance, I don't think it does. So let's discuss it. I would expect various topic / interaction bans to be enforced as a condition for unblocking; I assume we'll discuss these as we go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you really mean unanimous agreement? I've never seen that requirement suggested as necessary in order to maintain a block (or anything else on WP, really). Grandpallama (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 is the expectation here that we discuss a standard offer or conditions ahead of that discussion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would simply answer the following two questions : 1) Do you want to TGS to be unblocked? 2) If the answer to 1 is yes, what conditions would you put on an unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ritchie, just to be clear, are you volunteering to watch over TGS, in case they strap on the ice skates and go sailing on over the thinly iced over river again? --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to do that. Specifically, there are a bunch of articles I think he could focus himself on (getting Them (band) to GA status being an obvious starting point) and if he keeps to that, the problems should be minimal. As far as the discussion that you linked goes, I don't see anything particularly egregious about the edits; they may be in controversial topic areas, but they aren't blatant violations of policy, and he did ask for clarification. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. TGS is convincing, but, unfortunately, was convincing before. So we need a bit more. We've got that, Ritchie333 is a reputable admin, with a user page Michelangelo would envy. (Either the turtle, or the virus.) Given that, I think we should let them have the rope. (Again.) --GRuban (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just as background, for those considering this, is TGS made a couple of unblock requests whose aim was to be posted here. The text of those are:

I was re-blocked originally for my deceitful behavior and nonchalant avoidance of a promise I made to the community as a condition of an early unblock request. I dug myself in a deeper hole thereafter by avoiding the block with two sockpuppets. After the second sock, I came at a crossroads: make another sock or truly evaluate what put me in this position in the first place. I stopped trying to cast blame on others and pointed the finger back at myself. But I am not here now to make excuses for the behavior and give the “correct” combination of words to persuade you to unblock me. I was disrespectful, arrogant, immature, and a liar who treated consensus (and hence the editors who formed it) like nothing; I believed I was always in the right and ought to do what suited me, regardless of the words of editors much more experienced than me. I don’t want to be that type of person—a narcissistic, conceited jackass—nor do I want that to be my final mark here. Having been working in my first job, I have learned from real-world experience the value of honesty, of teamwork, and of respect for others. I would like to believe I have matured since then. The only way I see how I can demonstrate an actual change in my character is by asking for the opportunity here, with the understanding it will be a long road before I can rebuild anyone’s trust in me. If I am granted that opportunity, I intend to finally fulfill my original pledge (avoiding controversial topic areas and modern-day politics indefinitely), as well as any additional conditions made here, to demonstrate that I truly respect the judgement of others. I also hope to resume improving content on women and WWII biographies. This, with the understanding that any lapse should result in a site ban with no chance of re-entry into the project. As this may very likely be my final opportunity to address the community, I extend my apologies. I know for many my words probably hold no value, and I have no one to fault for that but myself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I declined at that time to post it here, as did NinjaRobotPirate, RegentsPark, and Deepfriedokra. I am glad Ritchie felt comfortable posting their request. For me the hang-up was TGS writing "avoidance of a promise I made to the community as a condition of an early unblock request." That is factually accurate and nominally addresses the problem but doesn't take ownership in anywhere near as complete of a form as I would need in this case. Ritchie wrote that the tune is familiar and then links to a 2015 situation. For me the more relevant link is from November 2018 with a well written request that by January TGS was already not honoring. I just don't see them taking ownership of that violation of the community's good faith and trust let alone all the previous violations (such as by socking). So for now I'm a regretful oppose - I need more from TGS rather than Ritchie on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Striking my opposition as multiple editors I respect are unbothered that TGS has had multiple standard offers so clearly I'm missing something or else not properly extending good faith to another editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep: The situation has changed a little. ——SN54129 14:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant me as Barkeep hasn't been involved in this. I'm not surprised that this has swung towards oppose. Will explain more at your talk page behind my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support- the proven positives outweigh the somewhat hypothetical negatives by a long way, and if TGS acts up again they can easily be re-blocked. And really, Ritchie is right. The edits they go blocked for were not actually all that egregious or disruptive. Reyk _YO! 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Everyone deserves a second chance, I'm sure TGS has learned to stay away from areas that got them blocked in the first place, I see no reason for them to remain blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support TGS seems to understand the conditions under which they were blocked, and realize that they need to stay away from controversy. They also seem to realize that if the ban hammer has to fall again, it will do so very harshly. I support giving some WP:ROPE here. If they act up, we can quickly block them again. But if they have learned their lesson, then we have gained a valuable contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. TGS has already been given a second chance. I don't trust anything they say.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I have to admit to being quite puzzled at some of the aggression directed towards TGS in the past, when from my experience (generally working on GAs together) he's been absolutely fine and a great contributor to the project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Are we really going to forget about how TGS harassed their own friend, Garagepunk, with a sock account, while continuing to be friendly with him with the real account? After indeffing the sock, it was you and I who unblocked that account, taking their good faith unblock request at their word, never knowing it was TGS. We imposed a conditional IBAN to protect Garagepunk from further abuse. They ignored the IBAN and actually continued harassing Garagepunk, IIRC. It was only then even after that that they got popped as a sock and blocked. We failed a harassment victim by believing TGS's empty words. And that was not even their first block for socking. Months later, we took them at their word again and unblocked them. And, again, they ignored their promises and completely disregarded the conditions of their unblock. That's why they're currently blocked. It's literally for abusing second chances and lying in their unblock requests. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support either it's a standard offer or it's not. One foul and they're out. Simple. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE on the basis that I will support a ban if there are any further problems at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support net positive. per CaptainEek. However, as TRM has said, we will not be happy if this opportunity is squandered.-- Deepfriedokra 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I agree that The Graceful Slick has contributed some very good content, but the editor has also engaged, repeatedly, in vicious harassment, sock puppetry and blatant deception of the community. His string of lies is very long. Only 14 months ago, he appealed an indefinite block and Tony Ballioni welcomed him back "with a strong warning that any future disruption will lead to an indefinite block that is unlikely to be lifted as easily." He immediately began breaking promises that he had made to get unblocked, and when I asked him to keep his promises, he blew me off. A couple of months later, he was again blocked indefinitely. This editor has already had several last chances and I for one am not prepared to extend a last, last, last chance. Please take the time to read the record. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yes, the unblock request is impressive and convincing, but their unblock requests have never not been impressive and convincing. That's the issue. They say what they need to say, they always have. They always "grow as a person" after being blocked. Their unblock requests show a high level of maturity and intellect, so I don't buy that this is some immature kid who just had to do some growing up, especially considering the behavioral issues go back years. It's hard to believe that after years of abuse, a person has completely changed in only a year. I get that they're a good content creator and their statements always garner sympathy, but it's just the same old game that we've been playing with them for years. The behavior we've seen from them is truly some of the most malicious and deceptive I've ever seen in my career here. I have a hard time writing it off as "immaturity" or "growing pains". I sympathize with their unblock request, I want to unblock them. I believe that screwups can redeem themselves. I trusted and respected them greatly when they were "in good standing", even going out of my way to grant them autopatrolled which they had not requested. I wish I could trust them again. But I simply can't, at least not after only a year. Even if I were to bend over backwards to rationalize an AGF unblock, I do not feel that the community could ever really trust them going forward. They've engaged in a nuanced game of malice and deception for years. At worst, this is just their latest attempt at manipulating us, which seems likely. At best, they're the boy who cried wolf, and while they may believe the story they're selling us, they and only they have eroded our trust to the extent that we simply can't take them at their word anymore, and that's on them, not on our capacity to AGF or appreciate content contributors. I'm sorry that I feel this way, and it's very painstakingly that I will deny an SO request, but I simply cannot rationalize myself into believing them this time around. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many last chances. Each last chance is followed by a heartfelt apology full of empty words and worthless promises. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• 'Support- Give GracefulSlick another chance as an editor that has made quality contributions in the past. --Rusf10 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose harassment is not cancelled out by a knowledge of sixties music, and TGS's original offences were egregious. But I supported their appeal then; as far as i'm aware, that was the WP:ROPE. As others have noted here, the apology is certainly well-crafted and convincing. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, as their previous appeal was also variously described The unblock request is one of the most open I've seen and ticks all the boxes, a more self reflective and honest unblock request than most, etc. Even their November 2018 was described as a truly a model form of WP:GAB. This suggests that TGS has honed the ability to appeal to a fine art. Not only did their previous SO acknowledge this, there were a number of opposes (and, indeed, cautious supports) emphasising that that was the end of the ROPE.
  I recommend a rereading of the previous appeal, the deja-vu is strong in this one. ——SN54129 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has really changed since the last unblock.I think we need to see some considerable work in other wiki projects and of course complete topic ban from any controversial areas. -Shrike (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Question I dont know the history, and will read it through properly before putting forward an opinion, but Ritchie333 can you confirn whether you feel that Swarm's description of their previous behaviour is accurate - did they sock to harass someone, while remaining friendly with them on their main account? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I haven't directly witnessed anything myself, but if other long standing editors have complained in good faith, then there's no smoke without fire. However, as I said above, the last block didn't seem to be related to this and the diffs I looked at were all pretty innocuous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for responding. I spent a bit of time reading back through the history just now, but I can't describe it as an exhaustive investigation and so I'm not going to offer a formal opinion in the form of a !vote. What I did notice though was that the last block was described by the closer, and some of the people who commented in the discussion, as the reimposition of the previous block. You may be right that the diffs that led to the current block weren't particularly egregious, but if I read it correctly, what people were saying at the time was "We gave you a chance to show that you were a reformed character, you immediately started editing in areas you'd promised not to, so the previous block is reinstated". With that in mind, it seems to me that the events leading up to the August 2018 block are every bit as relevant to this discussion as those that led to the January 2019 re-block. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit and Ritchie333: TGS engaged in an extremely deceptive campaign of harassment against their own friend Garagepunk66 using socks ABriefPassing and ALongStay. The harassment took the form of a deletion campaign coupled with incivility, personal attacks, and threats. Both socks were blocked indefinitely by me in response to Garagepunk's initial complaint here. They were conditionally unblocked after a few days, with the conditions being an IBAN from Garagepunk and an agreement to refrain from personal attacks, which they accepted. They were re-reported six months later for continuing the harassment and violating the IBAN, here. The thread is disturbing to read, absolutely full of shameless personal attacks against Garagepunk through and through, and somehow they were let off with a warning. If you search "ALongStay" in Garagepunk's archives, you can see some of the harassment, as well as his feelings about it. Disturbingly, he discusses the harassment at length with TGS. Absolutely insane. Anyway, none of this came to light until September 2016, which we can see play out here. That thread is disturbing to read as well. TGS completely feigned innocence and even manipulated Garagepunk into going along with it and continuing to support them. Throughout whole episode, TGS continued interacting amicably with Garagepunk, and actually heavily interacted with themselves using the two accounts, even holding conversations with themselves to hide the socking. This was 2015-2016, it's part of the history, and it's not why they are currently blocked. They're currently blocked for the same behavior, though, socking, deceiving, lying, manipulation. It's a pattern of behavior stretching across years. However that episode specifically is a particularly disturbing look into the type of person we're dealing with here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks for providing those diffs. Assuming that the CU evidence was solid (I have no reason to suspect that it wasn't), and that TGS is indeed the same person as ABriefPassing/ALongStay, then that's some of the most unsavoury, deceptive gaslighting that I've ever seen. I see a lot of stuff in the unblock request about socking, and about being deceitful - I'm not seeing anything where they address the apparent fact that they were maliciously and duplicitously targeting another editor, making out to be their friend with one account while harassing them with another. I couldn't support an unblock unless those issues were convincingly addressed. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Swarm, Cullen328, and Serial Number 54129. A well-written appeal means nothing in the face of sockpuppetry for the purpose of harassment, especially when the editor in question has already been given ROPE and blew their chance at that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What sockpuppetry and harassment has occurred since their last unblock? I need to see diffs and evaluate this myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's happened again since their last unblock. I don't think anyone who has ever used sockpuppets to harass someone while simultaneously pretending to friendly with them is someone who should be unblocked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, don't forget when TGS socked to oppose Jbhunley's RFA in August 2018. Deceptive use of sockpuppets to undermine one of our most important community processes is a big deal. Bigger still when it comes from someone who had already been involved in deceptive use of sockpuppets previously and gotten an unblock on that. I recognize that TGS was unblocked in November 2018 after the RFA thing because their appeal at the time was very strong, but it's clear that they are perfectly willing to write whatever we want to hear with zero intention of actually holding themselves to what they've written. That is not the kind of person I want to find myself interacting with on Wikipedia, regardless of how well-written their prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"I don't care whether it's happened again since their last unblock." I do, because otherwise we're putting an editor in double jeopardy. As you may recall, I nominated Jbhunley for RfA and I was not impressed at double-voting, although that in itself wouldn't have caused the RfA to fail. However, he's already been blocked for that and then subsequently unblocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Double jeopardy is the principle that you can't be tried again for the same offence once you've been validly acquitted. If you wanted to translate that to Wikipedia terms, that would mean it would be unreasonable for another admin to re-block TGS for those incidents after they've already been blocked and subsequently unblocked for them. Which is true, but that's also not what's going on here.

This discussion isn't about deciding whether or not to re-block TGS for those previous incidents. TGS is currently indeffed, again, as a result of other issues, and is now seeking an unblock. Again. If we're going to make analogies to the justice system, what we have here is more like a parole hearing, where the community weighs the possibility of future issues and decides if we want to have this person among us. Of course we should look at their entire history to make that determination. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and TGS's past behavior is deceptive and disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bbb23 and Cullen328. Guy (help!) 11:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Repeatedly dishonest and repeatedly viciously abusive editor who has been given more chances and more rope and more good faith than he deserved. We cannot allow deliberately abusive and deliberately dishonest people on the encyclopedia. Of course he claims that he's grown up and changed -- that's what he said the last time and the time before that and the time before that. We already know he's dishonest so there's no way we can trust him. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Closure of earlier unblock discussion was a WP:SUPERVOTE and lacked clear consensus for unblock. That said, talk page shows that Gracefulslick made same unblock requests with minimal modification even after they had been rejected. This is far from the definition of being 'sincere'. Excelse (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have been here before, they've already had the 2nd chance and the rope. This is a repeat of their November 2018 unblock request, after which they broke their promise to stay away from controversial areas, blew off those who called them out on it, and then got community banned. They cannot be trusted.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't that I don't trust Ritchie, but if we're talking about someone who has made multiple successful unblock appeals (not something to be proud of), and is making another one this year, then we are talking about a repeat offender who needs extended time off.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Eh? That's circular reasoning and faulty logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  No-one should need to make more than one successful unblock request.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  What P-K3 said.--WaltCip (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Swarm, Bbb23 and Cullen. Too many chances already; a rope has an (sometimes torn) end. Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to Oppose outright, but if unblocked there should be a complete and absolute topic ban on anything politics-related, broadly construed. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the user created sockpuppets for the purpose of harassment. Goodbye forever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've nothing new to add that isn't already stated better by previous "oppose" statements above; I agree that TGS has had their multiple chances and their rope, and thus this unblock request rings hollow. Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'd love to support this unblock request because TGS did great work in 1960s music articles and because I value Ritchie333's opinion on this subject very highly. But I also think Swarm sums the general opinion of those who had negative encounters with TGS and who have seen their unblock requests before. Not opposing because I don't want to pile on and because maybe in another year, TGS will have gained even more "maturity". I am surprised to read this report and not see any checkuser checks going on as I'm more aware of TGS socking problems than their disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Ritchie333's advocacy because I firmly believe we should be able to meatball:ForgiveAndForget, but the standard offer is not an entitlement and is meant for situations where things just didn't work out: normal people, short fuses, etc.. Swarm points out a deeply troubling incident and the user has already been unblocked and reblocked before making me hesitant to let out more WP:ROPE. It's important that the community trust that this user will not cause any more harm to the encyclopedia or its editors, and that trust doesn't seem to be here. It's incredibly possible that this unblock request is sincere, but as Swarm points out they and only they have eroded our trust to the extent that we simply can't take them at their word anymore, and that's on them, not on our capacity to AGF or appreciate content contributors. If the editor really has changed, I would encourage them to participate on other projects unproblematically for a while. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and I regret this because I've only had pleasurable dealings with TGS and have long admired his musical knowledge and ability with prose, but per Cullen and Liz and Wugapodes I don't think unblocking is in the project's best interests. I like Shrike's idea of a long period of work, devoid of any disruption, on other projects before reconsideration. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that we have been down this road before and the community's good will has been abused with at least one previous conditional unblock. As much as i admire Richie333's good faith, it's hard for me to overlook TGS's poor record in the community. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm all for second chances, but in light of TGS' past behavior they're a net negative. Miniapolis 00:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen's analysis above. I was considering supporting the unblock, but Cullen's oppose rationale convinced me otherwise. Second chances are not infinite chances. Normally, I extend WP:ROPE to repentant editors. We did that already, and it didn't work. --Jayron32 16:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aggressive User

Hi,

I would like complain about user: HistoryofIran. I several time tried to sustain healthy conversation with him/her but, unfortunately facet with attacks to my competency which I do believe that is not right. Also there are other several users work together, to create fake illusion that I am vandalizing pages or I use long statements to deceive reader. I need discussion to be opened as this user reverts all my edits and rejects to get involved to discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ismail_I

This encyclopedia is for community but unfortunately, this user creates an illusion that nothing can be changed without reaching consensus with him/her. My the most recent edit, note about Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijan was deleted with note RV. I am wondering whether these people are aware of this article? Shah Ismael is also part of Azerbaijan History and why these people think that his name shouldn't be mentioned in Azerbaijani Turkic in this article. What is a big deal? Where this ignorance and hate come from?

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• BOOMERANG. User "Mirhasanov" has recently initiated a WP:TENDENTIOUS edit spree. So far he's only been:
  

• Edit-warring, on "Azerbaijani language";(attempt #1-attempt #2-attempt #3-attempt #4-attempt #5), as well as Ismail I ([73]-[74]-[75]-[76]-[77]-[78]-[79]-[80]-[81]-[82]-[83] and Feyzullah Mirza Qajar.[84]
• Adding content which violates WP:VER.[85]-[86]
• Adding irredentist/pro-Azerbaijan content without justification (i.e. consensus, proper sourcing)[87]-[88]-[89]-[90]
• Dropping large amounts of incoherent WP:TL;DR text on talk pages.[91]

He has been warned on numerous occassions by various users (incl. a WP:AA2 warning).[92]-[93]-[94]-[95]-[96] This has gone way beyond any sort of "WP:AGF". :Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say "Mirhasanov" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the compelling evidences provided, i agree with LouisAragon. The filer of this baseless report is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather, he seems to be on a mission of falsification of history. Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dears,

Thank you very much for involving to this discussion. Honestly, I am not surprised see both of you here instead HistoryofIran and I am very sad to see how you are trying manipulate evidences to show only negative parts, not showing whole picture about how discussions in these evidences were closed.

Edit Warning regarding Azerbaijani Language Page: [97]

I have added reference that since 16th century Azerbaijani language was dominant language in a court of Safavids. However, this was multiple time reverted back by two different IP's without any proper reasoning.[98] [99]. I sent them multiple messages [100],[101],[102] and asked them to discuss it in proper way even opened topic in Talk tab for that, but unfortunately, these IPs were edit warriors. I don't know whether it is coincident or not both IPs belong to Iran and both IPs saying same thing also by reverting the text same day.

Anyway, it was clearly edit war as they were attacking my other changes, which I purposed to remove in Azerbaijan page.[103]. As soon as El C got involved to the discussion by applying protection to the page, everyone who was rejecting my edit somehow disappeared and my change was executed with me providing enough reference.

Regarding deletion of my reference with IamNotU we had very health discussion and in the end we decided that the reference I provided doesn't contain enough information or evidence, please note that "enough information or evidence", not fake and there are more other better reference that proves this statement, which can be used. We have mutually agreed and closed the topic. Since, no revert was conducted.

My changed in [104] topic.

I have added the note Iran's Qajar Dynasty of Turkic origin. Again it was attacked by HistoryofIran involving me to edit war. I haven't added anything from my own judgement this information was mentioned in "Qajar Dynasty"[105] page and I just copied it to relevant part of the article and I justified my change based on this, however it was credited as POV pushing or Rv dissputive.[106]. So I opened Talk tab to discuss it, [107], you can see how user were attacking me by changing direction of dispute. So I sow I am losing my temper and decided disengage from the topic for a while.

My change in [108] page,

Most recently, I raised topic about Ismael not being Kurdish or the references that was provided doesn't clearly say that. Again I got personal attack by user Historyof Iran toward my English. And my last change adding Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijan was first reverted by user HistoryofIran[109] as RV, POV then by user LouisAragon without any notification and with same comment [110]. Anyway, I asked him to justify his revert under Talk tab, but instead hearing from him and conducting constructive dialog, I see him adding evidences against me here.

It is not coincidence that even my complain here got attached by similar people including Wikaviani. I am observing their page for a long time and read their conversations how they plan attack someone by collecting bias evidences. It may sound like conspiracy but planned examination their conversation could show that. Anyway this off topic.

Moreover, I several times tried to built a good dialog even send him "apologize note" but didn't get any positive answer, rather than aggression, and my note was deleted. So I decided to solve this issue here for all.

To conclude, all my edits usually deleted and reverted back by two of these people. When I try to engage to the discussion with those people/users I see more aggressive behaviour than constructive or collaborative. I got involved to a discussion around same edits with IamNotU and magically we were able to do proper changes and non of this users reverted my change back. I invite those users to be more constructive specially against new users in Wikipedia, not creating aggression and end new user living Wikipedia as considering it tool of some diaspora groups. Shah Ismael's talk page clearly demonstrates how these users aggressively attack points of others specially users from Azerbaijan by provocating them to destructive discussion. If we want make the article unbiased, by continuously reverting the change and acting like administrator is not collaborative way to solve issue or dispute. As it can be seen from this complain, these users are trying to show more negative side of story than showing how they tried to make situation better and hiding their misbehaviour in a shadow of "proper reporting" which seems like they mastered it very well.

My suggestion is locking the Shah Ismael article and allowing edit only through request, which it was previously done in Azerbaijan page and after that I was able properly do my change without got attacked by others.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, please try to condense. Your comment above is almost too lengthy to be useful. Thanks. El_C 07:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

El C,

To conclude, I am saying that the evidences provided about my attempts doesn't reflect the truth. I am raising the question how I am able to progress my edits when I discuss it IamNotU but not with those people. HistoyofIran has an aggressive attitude around topics relevant to Iran. I understand that but he shouldn't revert my changes if he rejects to discuss it like mature people and inline with Wikipedia standards.

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, please review WP:INDENT. Anyway, if your edits are being objected to, you should try to discuss their merits on the respective article talk page. If there is an impasse there, please make use of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. But per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version should remain in place while a content dispute remains unresolved. El_C 07:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

El C,

What I want to raise is I see a group of Persian users who consistently attach new Azerbaijani users. It is enough to read [111] to see how they are propagating Azerbaijan related articles, specially in Azerbaijan Language which recently I managed to edit and correct. I will move this discussion to dispute resolution.

Thanks my friend,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Let me see if i got you straight, this thread you linked above contains a discussion between me and several POV editors who proved to be incapable to provide a single reliable source that supports their claims. The fact that you consider this as being "attacks" is just another evidence showing that you're not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani,

My friend you are still trying provacate the situation with you provacative questions. With your permission I am not going to answer to it as I saw many examples how you involved people, editors to more distructive discussion. I already raised this issue dispute resolution and hope someone neutral will get involved to avoid any future misunderstanding. I have nothing against you I just want to progress with my edits and when they are reverted I want discuss it in a constructive way not receiving an ignorance to my good will.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not about being "against" me or not, this is all about your disruptive attempts to add some dodgy content to Wikipedia articles without providing reliable sources and achieving consensus, let aside the fact that you seem unable to comprehend and speak English correctly enough. Also, playing an ethnic card like "I see a group of Persian users who consistently attach new Azerbaijani users" is completely irrelevant here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani,

My friend you again questioning my English competency more seems to be personal attack rather than attempt to create positive and collaborative environment here. You don't have background of this issue and believe me reviewing only my reverts in contribution tab gives you some pieces of whole puzzle. If you really want to help all of us to move from current negative dispute to more positive, practical and collaborative discussion, I am more than happy to help your attempts and will do my best, so we could achieve not only consensus but also be a good virtual fiends as well. I have a lot of Persian coworkers and friends, that I meet and collaborate every day despite the fact, we have different views to history and that is very normal. However, I would like again politely ask you stop personal attacks such as you are playing ethnic cart, your are unable to comprehend and speak English and etc. If you are happy and willing to discuss with correct manner, let's move to Talk tab of Shah Ismael's article and continue our conversation there in a friendly way. Please note that previous information regarding reference that I was trying add to the article has already been discussed and solved with IamNotU. You can read our conversation and see how he/she clearly stated his/her position and justified it in a right way and eventually, we decided that there are more reliable sources than source provide by me [112]. We can discuss Shah Ismael's heritage topic as references provided underpin obscurity of this point, neither solidly stating it was Tukic nor Kurdish. Moreover, why we should add Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijani language to this topic is another topic that we can also discuss.

Looking forward for our collaborative discussion. Please let me to know so I could open new tap, which will be new page to all of us and etalon to future editors. We can work to gather to establish healthy conversation between Azerbaijani and Persian editors, that would benefit Wikipedia community and ours.

Sincerely,

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is clearly not possible to have any kind of discussion with you, which this noticeboard, and the links shown by LouisAragon (and here [113]), clearly shows. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to force your own personal views on other articles, and should have been blocked by now. No one cares how many Persian buddies you have, stop focusing on the ethnicity of others, it has nothing to do with this. No one is attacking you, calling a spade a spade is not an attack. Looking at your massive edit warrings (linked above), and refusal to acknowledge/learn what is RS and what is not ([114] [115] [116]), your lack of vocabulary (clearly don't need to link this) and basic (?) history knowledge ([117] [118]), you've clearly never tried to have a "healthy conversation". No one is conspiring against you, and you are indeed vandalizing pages ([119]). Also, you do seem to like a bit of harrassing other users (me) as well ([120] [121] [122] [123] [124]). Stop this, thanks (EDIT: sorry if all this sounds a bit harsh, but that's the harsh truth, and you're wasting everyones time with this). --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Persian friends are not relevant here, nor is your opinion and nor is mine, we all try to work together in order to build an encyclopedia, but obviously you're not. Wikipedia works with consensus and reliable sources, not users' POV. I suggest you stop wasting the community's time with baseless complaints and disruptive editing.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment This report/case should be moved to WP:ANI. I don't think it fits here. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I think you're right but who can do this move ? the filer or any other editor ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The administrators --Wario-Man (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

My friend first of all the link provided by you [125] clearly shows your, including Wikaviani's misbehaviour not mine. Secondly, this is you(as a team) started focus on my ethnicity by statin "Adding irredentist/pro-Azerbaijan content without justification". Do you think below comments are proper or less irredentist?

First example: Wikaviani to A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔

Aykhan Zayedzadeh, your words sound like a pan Turk irredentist :

1. You contradict the source (ethnologue) which clearly states that there are significant differences between north and south Azerbaijani. language. - I recently changed it and made it more clear as previous misdirect readers[126]. Thanks to IamNotU for his will to improve and help me to get it right.

2. You support the "unification" of Azerbaijan Republic with Iranian Azerbaijan (while the vast majority of Iranian Azerbaijanis don't want this "unification").

3. You support the independence of "East Turkestan".

This clearly shows Wikaviani's provocative intention, which he succeeded to move discussion toward to more destructive phase, eventually leading user to leave the conversation.

Second Example[127], the reference about king palace was speaking Turkish language. You keep continuously saying it is not reliable source and deleting it without proper justification despite the fact that source meet all three Wikipedia requirement below:

1. The piece of work itself (the article, book) - It is a book from written and translated by western university. "STORIA DO MOGOR " of Niccolao Manucci, translation by William Irvine. This is wikipedia link to get more information about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Irvine_(historian).

2. The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) - Creator is Nicolao Manucci, who (19 April 1638–1717) was an Italian writer and traveller. He wrote a memoir about the Indian subcontinent during the Mughal era.[1] His records have been a source of history about Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, Shivaji, Dara Shikoh, Shah Alam, Raja Jai Singh and Kirat Singh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolao_Manucci

3. The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) - It is a book which published for Government of India under supervision of Royal Asiatic Society. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Asiatic_Society_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) Link to the book - https://archive.org/details/storiadomogororm04manu/page/n8/mode/2up

Subsequently, you started to say that this information is irrelevant and disengaged from conversation by linking our other conversation, which is completely different topic. My source was discussed with IamNotU and somehow was magically solved [128]. This proves your approach and willingness to discussion and reaching consensus.

Your link to harassment: Why do you show my "Apologize message"[129] as a harassment ? We all do mistakes and we have to apologize for it. Not accepting my apologize doesn't mean that you can use it against me. Even links you provide to justify my aggressive and harassing behavior proves that I want to discuss but, continuously got ignored and my changes are reverted without any proper discussion. You are trying create picture to show I am guilty but, in reality it is two sided. I am sure this is not first case where all three of you attacked new user and he/she eventually left wikipedia.

Moreover, You have clearly showed your intention not to collaborate and hold open/healthy discussion with me and I am sure you will keep reverting my changes, despite the fact that I justified it [130], all your comment was just checking only one link, him being Kurdish and this link is from Encyclopædia Iranica. It is like me bringing evidences from Turkish or Azerbaijani sources. Another topic that is clear, but continuously was rejected by you (all 3) is Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijani Language.He is from Azerbaijan region, Ardabil. Isn't that enough? What is big deal? this topic was previously discussed [131] and I am looking forward your solid justification why his name shouldn't be written in Azerbaijani language in the article. The predmet of consensus should be around why his name shouldn't be there, as Shah Ismael being from Ardabil, Azerbaijan left's no arguments.

To conclude, it is enough to go thorugh all messages here to identify who is aggressive and not willing to have health conversation[132].I invite for collaboration, but you keep your personal attacks to check my patienceو which I am not willing to lose. I don't say that I am clean as white paper, neither you all (HistoryofIran,Wikaviani,LouisAragon). You must stop attacking new users. Editors like you make Wikipedia bias and uses tactic who shouts higher to progresses his/her edits. If you really want to make Wikipedia better, please help users and direct them properly like ToBeFree did to me, not attacking nor putting several warning notes, as it doesn't help. I would like ask administrator to conclude our conversation/ discussion here and give us direction. I tried to change our conversation from finger pointing toward to mature phase but, seems we are not reaching anything here.

Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not reading that. I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

Undo Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Um, I just moved a page, and after reading the above thread, I think I had an error in judment. Can someone fix it for me and slap me with a trout? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LakesideMiners its the ones realated to the virus. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, Thank you~ LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undeletion

Hello!

Can some administrator undelete previous versions of File:Sky TG24.svg so I can import it to Commons. Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you. Can you do it at File:National Geographic Kids (logo).JPG as well?Jonteemil (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a little wary of undeleting that one, as it's a different version of the logo with far more stylization; and that version might thus actually be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I see. Is there a way to upload the file to Commons without losing it's history?Jonteemil (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: (Non-administrator comment) Doing so is likely against Commons' licensing policy, as images uploaded there must be freely licensed or in the public domain. Also, I'd recommend making such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion in the future. Invalid^OS (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reservation Number Spamming

We seem to be getting regular additions to airline articles from various IPs in the format "Reservation Number is 1-8XX-XXX-XXX" and similar, they appear to be at best spamming or at worst possibly some sort of scam, perhaps we should consider some form of filter to stop these edits ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: We do have a scam filter for this type of thing, already operating in several other areas. If you can pull together some numbers and some diffs, drop a note at WP:EFR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, we should probably stop all additions of phone numbers to mainspace by default. Guy (help!) 09:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been examined in the past, with negative results. We do filter on some things like "Contact...nnn", but plain (or formatted) phone numbers are a different order of problem. To give an example of the issues, consider ISBN numbers, GND, URLs, even things like the Anomalous magnetic dipole moment. It's a very tricky problem. Returning to the original issue here, I see that some regular filters editors are already clamping down on the airline spam. You can see the filter and related hits by looking at the filter recent changes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• See #Airline spam ring encountered between IPs and a user below. I have encountered the same kind of spam and put together a data base of users. Seems to all be from one central location. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Daily disruption by multiple IPs continues. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Need revdel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP has named the "whistleblower" in this diff. I believe the revision should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• I see that someone has conducted the revdel. On a side note, WHOIS for the IP address does not appear informative. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The IP is persisting [133] and [134] Not sure where this is headed. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What policy on Wikipedia protects US whistleblowers when identities are known and RS are reporting it? Just because you don't like it, is not policy reason to hide the information and block people. As people mentioned, we're not Congress. If RS is reporting the name, and I've seen it, then we can include it. I certainly don't see a need to block this user, he's participating on the talk page as he should. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Which WP:RS/P? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please name and cite the reliable sources using the name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I am pinging you to pile on with everyone else. Have a nice day please. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I saw it mentioned in the Dallas News, iirc. Regardless, what policy of Wikipedia says it should be revdeled and the user blocked? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The policy is that we don't include material not supported by a reliable source, and in this case, the material at issue is specifically potentially harmful to a living person. Please link to the article in the Dallas Morning News which uses the alleged name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I found it but dont want to get blocked. Also there is a Fox17 and RealClearInvestigations. Though not sure the status of RealClear stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News article you are apparently referring to does not say that any person is the whistleblower - it mentions a person that, according to the article, is "suspected" by "conservative circles". The apparent fact that anonymous right-wing partisans suspect something is proof of literally nothing, so, moving on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is a RS naming them as the suspected source. Literally what you are asking for. Also yeah every source mentioning a suspected someone for something will list them as suspected until confirmed. Also there are the other two I mentioned. PackMecEng (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, no, it's mentioning the speculation in the conservative media bubble. "Unreliable sources have speculated X. A Senator named after Ayn "I Got Mine, Fuck You" Rand mentioned the speculation on the Senate floor".

I think this is simple. We wait until top tier sources identify the alleged whistleblower as such. When it's in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times or Washington Post, then we can talk about including it. Otherwise we talk about the harassment campaign without contributing to it. Guy (help!) 17:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to calm down a little bit. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• What happened to WP:NOTCENSORED? I'm afraid to post a link to the article here too since someone will most certainly propose I be banned for it. But there is a Dallas Morning News Article that lists witnesses that Louie Gohmert believes should be called in if the senate decides to have witnesses in the impeachment trial. He names four people, according to the article one of them is "********* (they use the actual name), the former Ukraine director for the National Security Council whose name has bounced around conservative circles for months as the suspected whistleblower." Real Clear Politics also quotes part of a Rand Paul interview where he used the name. The Boston Herald also published an op-ed by former NY lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey that names the alleged whistleblower. The name has been out there for months, I don't he can't be referred to as the "alleged whistleblower" and what policy is being used to justify censorship.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP. As editors we have a moral obligation to members of the general public to be correct when reporting information that could potentially threaten someone's safety. The fact that someone suspects a private citizen is a certain individual is not sufficiently reliable for us to risk harming an innocent bystander. This same principle is applied to all instances of attempted outing of editors; if the New York Times wrote an article alleging that person X is the editor who goes by Wugapodes, including that on the article for person X would be (and has been) removed and oversighted. That same right to privacy should be extended to all private citizens. If and when coverage becomes more reliable than "person X said y is the whistleblower" it can be included. We are not at that point. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and it doesn't need to include every accusation that appears in the press. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid to post a link to the article here too since someone will most certainly propose I be banned for it

For good reason. Rightfully so. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to get at is WP:BLPNAME? Otherwise it looks like you are trying to suggest that suspects should never be named and that is clearly not the case. PackMecEng (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The person in question is not a "suspect," they are a whistleblower and a witness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Suspect"? What crime are they a "suspect" in, here? Your use of the term tells me everything I need to know about your lack of fitness to edit or comment on political articles. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Calton, suspect is used here as a verb, not a noun. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh calm down. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• They're not a "suspect", meaning they're not suspected of a crime, but I believe they are still a suspected whistleblower, meaning they have not identified themselves as a whistleblower, nor have the consensus of RSes confirmed their identity as a whistleblower. I think "should we name the whistleblower" sounds like a content question that should be resolved by an RfC somewhere other than WP:AN. For my part, I'd want to see an international or national media outlet name them (like WSJ or WaPo), or a number of smaller regional outlets, like Dallas Morning News, but Boston Herald and Fox TV affiliates are too local and partisan for me to accept them, alone, as evidence of the "consensus of RSes". Levivich 07:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why yes, "suspected whistleblower" doesn't sound dodgy or hinting at criminal activity AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Calton, the closest analogy I can think of is this:

  We're standing in the smoking remains of a building, looking at a pile of jerrycans and a Zippo with the arsonist's fingerprints clearly visible in the soot. His associates are standing round us. They freely acknowledge that he brought the cans, poured out the fuel, and lit the fire.

  And they are loudly insisting that the real scandal is that the guy who called 911 had "ties" to the fire department.

  One might justly infer motives from this. Loyalty. A sincere and principled belief that the arsonist has a God-given right to burn houses down if he wants. But I cannot find any trace, anywhere, of a single good-faith explanation for wanting to publicly identify the whistleblower. It's like public announcements of investigations. Whatever the merits of the underlying case, all the plausible non-corrupt reasons for doing the thing would demand that it not be made public. Guy (help!) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• George Takei said it best: "Trump has lit the damn house on fire, but the GOP just wants to go after whoever pulled the fire alarm." -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, and notice how Guy thinks discussing this would be considered ban-worthy by some, and he considers himself someone in the center. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I am sure there was supposed to be an edit filter preventing the addition of this name - did it bug out? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's filter 1008, but it looks like it only recognises the person's full name, not just their surname. Pinging @ST47 and Zzuuzz:. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This information is in the public record. Rand Paul stated a name on the Senate floor, which RS have linked to the alleged whistleblower [redacted]. Paul has repeatedly stated he does not know who the whistleblower is, but would like to look at the relationships between NSC staffers and Schiff staffers. It is entirely appropriate for the Congress to look into something that may have contributed to an impeachment inquiry. If someone blew the whistle on Obama and may have been connected to Nunes or Gowdy staffers then Wikipedia would have named them day 1. I'm wearing out all my shoes putting them on the other feet for how this Congress acted during impeachment. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, neither of those sources actually names the whistleblower. Sir Joseph and Mr Ernie, please email me links to several RS which actually do name the whistleblower, and NO, Fox News is not a RS for AP2 subjects, so I'd need MORE than just Fox News (but include it anyway). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

They don’t name the whistleblower explicitly. My point is that Paul mentioned a name on the Senate floor, and the RS say this person is the alleged whistleblower. Paul deliberately made no reference to any whistleblowing and maintains he doesn’t know who it is. Paul’s concern was that there was potentially improper coordination between an NSC employee and a Schiff staffer. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, so there's speculation on the Senate floor that the Chief Justice thought was completely inappropriate to air publicly, and that's a great reason for us adding it?

Explain to em again how that's a good idea.

Or, possibly a better idea, drop the stick. Because I actually think that continuing this line of argument would be considered ban territory by quite a few people here. Guy (help!) 17:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I think you are wrong, but if we did, it would be because reliable independent sources did so. One may reasonably speculate as to whether the Washington Post would name a protected individual under the circumstances you describe - I personally doubt it, but it is possible. However, right now, it's a campaign of harassment and intimidation carried out by distinctly non-reliable sources.

Let's not forget that someone arrived with a gun to shoot up a pizza parlour to free the children imprisoned in the basement it doesn't have. Guy (help!) 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

From Trump–Ukraine scandal

From Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal:

For the avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia will not include the name of the whistleblower until it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (RS). Inclusion in RS is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. To understand what Wikipedia means by reliable in this context, please review the list of perennially discussed sources. Note that partisan websites - left or right - are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people.

Please note that those trying to add the name have repeatedly triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1008. Several users and IPs have been blocked for this. Log entries are being suppressed by Oversight. There have been about a dozen int he last 24 hours alone.

On Wikipedia, we typically understand the difference between what is in the public interest, and what interests the public. We're usually also quite good at not being part of off-wiki harassment campaigns, however prominent the harassers might be. Wikipedia 101: Reliable. Independent. Secondary.

Repeatedly trying to add this name is a truly terrible idea, people should be ashamed of themselves for trying it, and I suspect that if it continues, ArbCom may take an interest. See also m:DICK. Guy (help!) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) are restored.

Support: AGK, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno

Oppose: None

Not voting: David Fuchs, DGG, Joe Roe

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Steward elections

Steward elections are open at m:Stewards/Elections 2020. Most people who are active here meet the criteria to vote, so alerting the community on our largest project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 is ambitious on me and trying to Block me

Dear Admins, [User:Kautilya3] is removing the contents with proper Reference from the page Golla (caste) by using the reason This article is full of WP:OR so Admins please check the page and take the decision and also he is having some ambitious on caste contents. take an action on him Admins please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyanarayana naidu (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sathyanarayana naidu You need to stop edit warring and discuss the issue on the article talk page with other editors. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have a WP:CIR problem with the UP. They are in fact discussing on article talk, but seem to have difficulty taking on what they're told. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Images being added & no response to concerns.

• Lennox Theodore Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wasn't certain where to make this request, so I came here. Would an administrator review the images that @Lennox Theodore Anderson: has been adding to articles, over these last few weeks. He's been adding them without consent & doesn't answer any posts at his talkpage. PS: I'm just not certain how to approach 'any' editor, who refuses to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note = He's been getting a lot of visits from MifterBot, lately. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Shilow Tracey

I wanted to move Shilow Tracy to Shilow Tracey however someone seems to have added a stub article there, hoping an admin could sort it for me. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The someone who created a stub at the correct spelling is me - so why didn't you ask me? I just happened to see this post on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a BRFA open with the following task description:
General:

• The bot will go over all categories with no members.
  • If the category does not exist, it will skip the page (this is necessary due to a lag in DB replicas).
    • If it exists, it will check that the category has 0 members.

Tagging:

• If the category is a category redirect, it will check for backlinks.
  • If it has a talkpage and 1 backlink or if it has no talkpage and 0 backlinks, it adds the category Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which can be assessed for CSD#G6 by other editors. A lot of these cat-redirects of these nature are implausible typos (which if in the article namespace would be eligible for R3) or meant for utility where this is none.
• If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}} or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page.
• If the category is not any of the above, it will nominate it for deletion under CSD#C1.

Deletion:

• It will check the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion category.
• If the latest revision is from 7 days ago, and does not meet any above criteria (of being possibly empty or a redirect category), it will delete the page.

Listing here per WP:ADMINBOT. Interested editors can also see User:QEDKbot/Catlog which is a dry-run of the first few articles. Any feedback is appreciated. Best, --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discuss this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot

Killing of Harambe

A recent edit to Killing of Harambe added the name of the boy who fell into the cage. Is there a way to get that edit removed? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But next time, please ask for revdeletion more discretely — this noticeboard is too visible for that. El_C 00:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spammer

I found an editor on wikiHow publishing articles promoting their own website. I was attempting to clean up some of their damage on wikiHow then encountered the same spammer over here on Wikipedia. I think I smell something fishy over here, so wanted to report Stemfie3D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. [135] (must be logged in to view this user's contributions on wikiHow) [136] [137] and on Wikimedia commons [138]. I have reverted all of their edits here and gave a warning of the username policy, but I think this is a WP:SPA. Aasim 00:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to wikiHow forum post as it may be relevant [139] Aasim 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Post was closed Aasim 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help with MfD item

I need your help with the MfD item below. I tried to contact BD2412, but didn't get a reply yet. please advise. thanks.

LINK: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts#User:Brianboulton/drafts

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes pls someone step in here ...now moving pages in a dead user's namespace.--Moxy 🍁 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

....yes, in direct response to a direct request by the longest-standing admin, that other editors please review the sandbox drafts left by this cherished individual's erudition. my edits were meant to assist anyone who might wish to come along later, and work on these drafts as originally requested. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is simple drama that can be handled by the community and doesn't need immediate admin attention. I would make one simple plea to all involved: please don't do anything that will turn it into something that does require immediate admin attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My concerns (which I began communicating, last month) are going to (regrettably) eventually come to pass :( GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate thanks for your helpful reply. no worries, we are handling it. we will keep you posted should anything arise. we appreciate it. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at AIAV

A bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Not so bad right now but it is a Good Thing to deal with vandals quickly instead of giving them a few free hours.

Personal request: I have always held the position that anyone who allows themselves to go through RfA hell in order to do a thankless job and have a target painted on them must be nuts. I am wondering, however, if it might be worth doing it for the good of the encyclopedia if I did it in order to give AIAV another worker instead of us always relying on the same few admins. If anyone thinks I should or should not consider it, please post a comment on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Backlog cleared. No comment on your RfA ambitions but have you tried WP:ORCP? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, before deciding to start a candidate poll, I suggest reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll § Participation of commenters for cautionary advice on the potential effects of holding an optional RfA candidate poll. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yeah, ORCP is probably useful for new editors with little track record, but in your position, just go for it. Your page will be peppered with "thought he was already"s, etc. ——SN54129 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wide blocking, but you can't edit from a registered account either

Special:Contributions/37.142.160.0/20.

The form of blocking prevents subscribers from editing. I'm writing here at User:התו השמיני request. You should change the block so that subscribers can edit. If not, give it IP block exemption. דגש חזק (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

דגש חזק, your friend התו השמיני (sorry if I messed up your usernames, the right-to-left is giving me trouble) will want to take a look at Wikipedia:IP block exemption to request a flag that will allow them to edit even with the block in place. I assume that the reason that it's a checkuser block and isn't anon-only is because there have been an overwhelmingly large number of problematic accounts editing from that range. Ping Berean Hunter as the admin who blocked that range. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it is a CU-block, normal adminstrators will not lift the block, Berean Hunter should have been your first point of contact. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone up for a team admin close?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). After reading this 151kb debate for over a hour (it also includes suggestions that the AFD be team closed, as it's contentious) I am thinking we need an admin team to determine the outcome, as the topic is controversial and well-attended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks to some problems sleeping I have now spent my own hour plus reading and would be willing to do a joint close. I agree a team approach is called for in this case and wonder if there's a third person willing to invest the time necessary to join a close team. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Spartaz already closed... Primefac (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Barkeep49, Spartaz, and Primefac: ...as delete. So please, keep this in mind. That said, it's on hold until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted. ミラP 01:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Username backlog

There is quite a backlog at the Username page, would greatly benefit from attention from admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did most of the bot reported ones. I left some that I wasn't really confident what to do with. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:Ear-phone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

We have received this unblock request from user Ear-phone via UTRS. I'm going to copy and paste the unblock request from UTRS below so those without access can see it.

"Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for being a socket puppet, more than a year ago. I was asked to apply for an unblock after six months. I did this and I was unsuccessful. I tried again after one year and I was again unsuccessful because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language). As I have said before, I reflected on my actions and understood it was wrong to be a socket puppet. I pledged and pledge to use only one account to edit and contribute positively.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Articles related to my interests, mainly science-related including biographies of scientists.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

In my view, the block was warranted but unfairly long. I have openly admitted to using socks in the past. I have mentioned that I will not use them again and will contribute constructively as I have now read the guidelines. The block has the effect of denying me voluntary participation in a worthwhile global movement.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Justice and fairness. English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences."

I emailed Bbb23 regarding this as they're the blocking administrator. A CU check was ran and Bbb23 found some obvious logged out edits by the user and some less obvious ones. Bbb23 has said as far as they're concerned that would preclude an unblock. However, if we overlook the logged out edits they would permit an unblock after a community discussion. Bbb23 found another possible sock of User:Lucas-O'D but was reluctant to confirm the account as there's only 2 edits, the medical stuff Ear-phone is more interested in is African related and they don't think it's the same style.

Would the community be willing to accept an unblock?

I'm going to give them TPA again to allow them to respond to any questions here if someone would like to add that to their watchlist so any answers can be copied and pasted.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I'm glad to see that they want to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively, but part of being a constructive editor is in respecting the policies and practices of the editing community, including the sockpuppetry policy and blocking policy, which prohibit IP editing while blocked. If this user can stay away from Wikipedia without socking or IP editing for 6 months, I think that they would be a perfect candidate for the standard offer. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I am usually well disposed towards unblock requests for editors blocked long ago who promise not to do again what led to their being blocked. Over the years I have far more often found myself to be in a minority (not infrequently a minority of one) in supporting an unblock in this kind of situation, while others oppose, than the other way round. However, this time there are several things which give me pause. In connection with previous unblock requests, the editor lied about what sockpuppet accounts they had used. (That was clear from reading the editing history, and also confirmed by a CheckUser.) The editor is now denying any further block-evasion, but Bbb23 has "found some obvious logged out edits by the user". Why should we unblock an editor who is known to have been lying about their block-evasion for over a year, and is known to be still lying? At the very least I would want the editor to come clean now about their dishonesty in the past and recently before considering an unblock. Unless they can produce a pretty convincing explanation I am inclined to agree with OhKayeSierra, who suggests a standard offer if the editor can keep off block-evasion for 6 months. I also agree with Bbb23, who has said that as far as they're concerned the IP block-evasion would preclude an unblock. (I can see no reason why a community discussion might "overlook the logged out edits".) As for Lucas-O'D, I'm not sure. Bbb23 rightly points out that there are differences, but there are similarities too. With only two edits there is not much to go on to judge either way, so probably we should not attach much weight to that account, in view of the doubt. JBW (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Incidentally, the comments above about an unblock request being unsuccessful "because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language)" and "English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences" are missing the point. The rquested change of the unblock request was about substantially rewriting it because it did not address the reasons for the block, not, as Ear-phone apparently thinks, about rewording sentences so as to improve the English. JBW (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
• If these logged out edits were made in the last 90 days (from the tracked IP logs) then I'd be an oppose. If they were determined by the current IP against IP-edits made more than six months ago, then I might be a weak support. Are CUs only run off the last 90 days, or can account/IP checking be done on a longer timescale? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser data is kept for only 3 months. I suppose it would be possible for a CheckUser to check an account's current IP address for edits from longer ago, but even if a CheckUser did so, it would provide no technical evidence of its being the same editor beyond being the same IP address, and I wouldn't have expected Bbb23's reference to "obvious logged out edits by the user" to be based on no more than just the IP address. However, Bbb23 may like to clarify that issue in response to Nosebagbear's query. JBW (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, @JBW:, not least because the CU tool is apparently particularly clunky, even by wiki standards, and I've not heard a mention of its ability to compare current IP data in the logs and IP data that's only associated with non-account edits (but has left the stored logs as too old). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am copying the following message from User talk:Ear-phone. Bbb23, would you care to comment on it? JBW (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you say obvious logged out edits. I give my consent for the IP addresses to be released in public so that the community can see for themselves and verify. I categorically did not edit Wikipedia. I did not lie and I addressed that previously. Ear-phone (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: - I, and pretty much the entire community, are happy to accept a CU's statement on these matters - I can't see any benefit in you releasing private information onto the site, it was just a request for clarification. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser policy permits me to disclose IPs "With the permission of the affected user". I have never done so and find myself strongly rebelling against doing it now. I believe the community should exclude the obvious logged out edits. The only thing that gives me pause is Ear-phone's categorical denial, but it's possible Ear-phone has forgotten or thinks I'm referring to something else. As for the non-obvious edits, the IP edited a non-medical, science article. Finally, another thing that makes this tough from a technical perspective is Ear-phone's very common user agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ear-phone has qualified their denial of editing logged out on their Talk page: "I did not edit Wikipedia when logged out or logged in (besides my talk page)." I tend to be very skeptical about what socks say, but in this instance, without endorsing an unblock, I urge the community to treat Ear-phone's unblock request based only on their reasons and history, and assume that they have not socked in the 90 days before my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding since the orientation is that we're not allowed to disclose an account's IP address, even with permission from the accountholder, because the local policy differs from the global policy and overrides it in this aspect. I was told that by someone (don't recall who) but I don't see that wording in the policy as of right now. Personally I also would not reveal it from the user's private data even by their request, but also it's very obvious to anyone who looks at Ear-phone's talk page history (I did not run a check). I wouldn't consider those edits to be a violation of the policy. I don't have an opinion on what else you might have seen, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - I feel that we should take the user's word for it. CheckUser has been proven to be inaccurate before, and this could easily be one of those instances. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not. The results require interpretation, but they're not wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking the editor said that they are not going to use sockpuppets again and has appealed twice but got denied. I think the time this editor has spinned blocked is enough "punishment" for the sockpuppetery they did. Indefinite block is really too much.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any decision on this yet?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 has given their permission for us to make a decision-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So... are we going to wait a while before closing or what? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock I am not an admin, so I appreciate I do not get a vote per se, but I'd like to add a note of support here. On the matter of block evasion, I have worked closely with the user on several wikipedia-related projects during the period of their block and they have been extremely conscientious about not editing during that time, and have clearly stated so when the topic has arisen (e.g. when other users have asked him to make an edit without realising his block status). From my observation of their off-wiki activity, they have been remarkably strict in sticking to the terms of the block, whilst remaining supportive of the movement off-wiki with an intention to eventually return to official good standing in the on-wiki community. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: this is the noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, but it's not off-limits to non-administrators. Unblock appeals like this one are put to a discussion among the community, not just admins, so your opinion here is most welcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am copying the below from Ear-phone's talk page-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I accidentally made logged out edits on my talk page on 8th December 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.233.155.181. I am noticing now that it looks like I am continuing to edit Wikipedia in violation of my block, given the 2nd February 2020 edit. Besides the 8th December 2019 edits, the rest are not from me. There must be some mistake somewhere. Ear-phone (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock per standard offers Buffs (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note re resource

I have posted the message below at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#new_resource_created. I would not normally post the same message again at this page. however, due to the sensitivity of this item, I am posting it here.

I am posting this here simply to:a) keep you apprised of this. b) let you know in case in the future, any such situation may arise, c) willingly invite any feedback you may wish to share. if anyone wishes to comment, that's fine;' if not, no problem. I appreciate your help. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

message:

I have personally set up the following new page , populated it, structured it, and formatted it for the use of the Wikipedia community at large. This is meant as a place to list any drafts left by deceased Wikipedians, to enable and to encourage others to continue work on these cherished and valued writings, and drafts as they may wish.

• Link to page:
  • Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Drafts

All of us are resolved to highly value, to cherish and to admire the heartfelt work and efforts by those who are no longer with us, and wish up to set up this resource to commemorate their efforts. by doing so, this is one good way to make sure as a community that their work shall be cherished, and that the work of our encyclopedia shall go forward, and that our work will continue to grow, and to flourish, on behalf of future generations who will benefit from the work done here. I appreciate the help, thoughts and insights of everyone involved here. thanks!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Alex Shih has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion last year to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Alex Shih requested it within one year. Because Alex Shih has not requested the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih#Motion to Suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed

Appeal of Arbitration Enforcement Sanction

There is a consensus to accept the santion appeal request. The sanction placed on Rusf10 relating to administrative reports is overturned. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

On January 6, 2020 user:Johnuniq placed me under a [140] that prevents me from filing "frivolous" reports at administrative notice boards. The full text of that sanction is If Rusf10 initiates an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous, a 1-month topic ban from the topic area may be imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and WP:AE. and resulted from the the discussion [141] after I filed a report against user:BullRangifer for attacking my competence.

I am filing this appeal for several reasons: 1. Several administrators claimed that the reports I made against BullRangifer were "vexatious" and "frivolous", but this cannot be further from the truth. In fact, don't take my word for it, in all instances that I filed an AE request against BullRangifer (including this one), the administrators found his behavior to be inappropriate and issued him warnings.

• July 20, 2018 BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions
• March 13, 2019 The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated.
• April 24, 2019 Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources.
• January 6, 2020 BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions.

How is it that every single time I bring a complaint about BullRangier, he is issued a warning, but I am told the complaint was frivolous? How is it possible for a frivolous complaint to result in a warning? After four warnings, you would think some type of actual sanction would be imposed on BullRangifer, but this is not the case. Instead, the admins at AE have sanctioned me and given him multiple meaningless warnings that have done nothing to correct his behavior.

2. The sanction I was given is both unprecedented and purely punitive. To my knowledge, the arbitration committee itself has never imposed such a sanction on any other editor designed to silence him on noticeboards. The sanction imposed on me does absolutely nothing except open me to further personal attacks in AP2 because I cannot bring any complaints for fear they will be deemed "frivolous" regardless of whether they really are or not.

3. The sanction is overly vague. It states I will be topic banned if the "report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous". With this language, even if a sanction is imposed on the editor I reported, the admins can still deem the report to be frivolous and put me under a topic ban. I have no way of knowing what is considered a "frivolous" report and am in effect banned from filing any reports for fear of administrative retribution.

In conclusion, I believe the admins have imposed a double standard here excusing BullRangifer's behavior despite recognizing it was inappropriate and sanctioning me for reporting it. It is inexplicable to aknowledge that the sbustance of my complaint has merit and at the same time tell me that it is "frivolous" and "vexatious". --Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Following is an extract from my comments at WP:AE permalink:

• My view is that some sanction against Rusf10 is warranted given these events on 21 December 2019:

• 18:02 Rusf10 changed "found" to "charged" at Donald Trump: diff.
• 18:48 MrX reverted: diff.
• 19:08 Rusf10 posted at Talk:Donald Trump objecting to MrX's revert: diff.
• 20:04 Rusf10 nominated FBI secret society (created by MrX in January 2018) at AfD: permalink.

Rusf10's other AfD nominations before and after the above were on 10 December 2019 and 26 December 2019. That is too blatant to ignore for a topic under discretionary sanctions.

The point of the above is that BullRangifer's inappropriate response (now struck here) was calling out Rusf10's pointy AfD nomination—that is why administrators issued a warning to BullRangifer rather than a stronger sanction. No one knows what is in the mind of another editor so words like "vexatious" or "frivolous" mean that actions appear to have those qualities. A basic principle is that if someone's (BullRangifer) behaviour is so bad, another editor will notice and report the problem. Rusf10 should only report problems if sure that there are no extenuating circumstances such as the above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• (na) I agree with most of that and I'd agree with all of it if BullRangifer's comments had been made somewhere other than on Rusf10's talk page. If it was on an article talk page, or ANI, or Jimbo's talk then yes, absolutely, other editors could and should take note of the personal attacks. But on the user's talk page I don't think it's safe to assume anyone other than the target and the writer of the personal attacks will see them in a timely manner. It would set the precedent that someone under a topic ban has to sit still and take insults levelled at them on their own talk page without being allowed to say or do a thing about it. Reyk _YO! 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (AE sanction appeal)

• Overturn – It's a logical contradiction. If Rusf's AE report appeared frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a warning against the reported user (and in near-unanimous agreement that the reported conduct was inappropriate)? On the other hand, if Rusf's AE report did not appear frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a restriction against Rusf? As was pointed out in the AE thread by some, it just can't be both. A valid report cannot be a frivolous or vexatious report–they are mutually-exclusive concepts. Levivich 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is so vague as to be unenforceable. Many AE actions are closed as no action, just because admins don't do anything and the time expires or the diffs become stale. Forget about the ones about vexatious or frivolous. Regardless, while again, AE and ARBCOM area isn't a court, AE operates under ARBCOM guidelines and need to be a bit higher than general guidelines and sanctions, and we can't have restrictions that are extremely vague. I also echo Levivich's remarks as to how the original AE action be considered frivolous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rusf10 is gaming the system by nominating an opponent's page for deletion, then stonewalling when people complain about it, then reporting the opponent when they react unwisely. That has happened twice that I know about. See my comment above for the most recent case. In July 2018, BullRangifer criticized Rusf10 which led to a revenge MfD 73 minutes later: permalink. BullRangifer would be sanctioned for their comments if they were not preceded by such blatant point violations. Discretionary sanctions are vague by definition—there is no precise specification for what an editor can get away with. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq:I am not gaming the system, the system is broken. In what system does a person get repeated warnings (at least 4 by my count) and not get sanctioned??? A more accurate summary of events is that I nominated a page for deletion that was created by another editor (Not BullRangifer) and then BullRangifer comes to my user talk page to attack me over it completely unprovoked. Sanctions are not supposed to be vague. If the goal is to get the person under sanction to comply, then that person should have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. Vague sanctions are a trap designed to "game the system" so a person can be punished without a clear understanding of what they did wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The authority for administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion is broad in order to allow for flexibility in managing a difficult area. However it is to everyone's benefit that any actual sanctions imposed under this authority are as precise as practical, to facilitate enforcement. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Honestly it looks like BullRangifer has a habit of making personalised remarks, Rusf10 has a habit of battleground editing, and the two of them have some sort of long-running feud. Rusf10 has filed four AE requests against BullRangifer in the space of about 18 months. These seem to be closed with a resolution that BullRangifer's comments were inappropriate but that Rusf10 hasn't behaved perfectly either. In several BullRangifer struck the comments in question and/or apologised, which made the result considerably less severe. It isn't true that none of these requests have resulted in any sanctions against BullRangifer, the April 2019 request resulted in a sanction against making personalised remarks. The particular request here did relate to some extremely blatant harassment by Rusf10 that definitely justifies a sanction in itself. I'm not sure the remedy which was imposed here is the best one but there does seem to be a problem that justifies a sanction. Maybe an interaction ban would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's what I don't "get" about this. Rusf has filed four reports against BR. All four resulted in either a warning/sanction against BR, or BR striking the comment. So, which of the four were frivolous or vexatious? None of them were. If they resulted in warnings/sanctions/striking, then they were obviously valid reports. So why is Rusf restricted from filing "frivolous" or "vexatious" reports, since he apparently has never done that before? Also, the gap between filings #3 and #4 was 10 months, so it's not really a repeated/ongoing thing; that's a big gap. It seems to be that Rusf, like SashiRolls not too long ago, is being sanctioned for doing something that they did not actually do (or did not do recently). I would encourage both those editors to appeal their sanction to arbcom; both cases seem to me to be total failures of basic procedural fairness. Levivich 19:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Levivich:I'd rather not drag this out into an arbcom case if possible. That's why I am appealing here. I have lost all faith in the group of admins that frequent AE, but I do believe that the greater community can do the right thing and rescind the sanction here at AN. I think there is a larger issue of whether AE even accomplishes its intended purpose (particularly in AP2) or if its just used as a tool for biased admins to rig the system. Though it has not been updated recently, there is documentation of this bias at AE here My purpose here is specifically to appeal my sanction, but the larger issue probably should come before arbcom at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

      Rusf10, unfortunately, the way the rules are written, nobody can take the larger issue before arbcom except for a sanctioned editor. So would one of you kindly martyr yourselves for the good of the rest of us, please? :-) I would do it myself, but while I have some good ideas for how to get properly sanctioned, I'm not quite sure how to get myself improperly sanctioned so that I can appeal it. Thanks, btw, for that link–very interesting research. Levivich 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

      I certainly support your request for fairness (4/4), Rusf10. I'm not allowed to comment at AE "requests", so I just watched the latest case quietly while it was going on. Given some recent "visitations" to my TP I've been made to understand I'd better keep my mouth shut if I want to survive until cherry-picking season. There's two prosecutors in that file (which I hadn't looked through recently) with absolutely remarkable 100% conviction rates. One of them is blocked. Good luck.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am obviously opposed to granting this appeal, but I admire the chutzpah of having reported an editor for calling out one's own blatant WP:HOUNDING behavior. Rusf10 could stand to have one less weapon at their disposal should they decide the engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct again. The zeal to get Bullrangifer sanctioned for the smallest of transgressions is not healthy. - MrX 🖋 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse sanction - I don't regularly participate at AE nor did I participate in the discussion which enacted this sanction, but it seems clearly appropriate and had consensus among numerous reviewing administrators. For those who haven't pored through the comments, there was a sense among the participants not that Rusf's complaints have been without merit, but that they have persistently been a disproportionate response to minor slights, and in the most recent case at least they have also been disruptively forumshopped. The complaints are "vexatious" because they have consistently been reports of misbehaviour not meriting any sanction more serious than an apology or warning, and several have been accompanied by obviously retaliatory actions on Rusf's part. It also is resumption of behaviour for which they were previously sanctioned, if I'm reading the comments correctly. The effected sanction is not "overly vague", it is sufficiently broad to give admins the authority to address the problematic behaviour if it recurs. Frankly I would read that discussion as supporting a DS topic ban from AP2, but Johnuniq did not apparently see it that way. The fact that Rusf is here tossing casual insults at "biased admins" suggests they're still not getting the message, and perhaps even stronger sanctions are warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector:There was absolutely no forumshopping on my part. Yes, I brought the complaint to ANI first, but it was promptly closed by an admin who told me I had to bring it to AE. I wasn't even sure if AE was the correct place for this anyway since the issue was on my talkpage, not an article talkpage, which I mentioned when filing at AE, but with the ANI discussion closed so quickly I had no other option. And "biased" is not a insult, but a criticism of certain admins (I will not name them) who frequently show up a AE and defend the behavior of editors who share certain political beliefs with them. Admins should strive to put aside their personal beliefs and look at disputes objectively. Look at the AE discussion, another editor alleged that I was WP:Hounding them without proof and several admins just went along with it. Hounding requires a person to following another editor around to multiple pages. Yet, only one diff ( a single deletion discussion) was ever provided as evidence. I am still waiting for the diffs that provide evidence of hounding since my multiple requests for them have been ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You posted a broken link (you took the Wikipedia link and added "http" to it, which doesn't work; it should be [142]) but here is the text of El C's close: "I guess my advise was not heeded, so I'll make it official. I do not deem the comment in question to constitute a personal attack. AE is a better venue because we don't want AP2 to spillover at ANI. It's too chaotic. If admins at AE have failed to address the issue in question, then that could also be because the requests themselves were not potent enough. Rusf10 is free to relist this as an AE request, but I don't know if it is going to amount to much. Meanwhile we seem to have another dispute going on in this thread that seems to just be a waste of everyone's time and energy. Putting a stop to that. (posted by El_C 23:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC), emphasis added) So, you were told by an uninvolved closing administrator that your complaint was not actionable, that if admins don't act on your requests it's because your complaint merits no action, and that your persistent requests bring drama that is a waste of everyone else's time. In response you made the same request in a different forum anyway, and when you didn't like the result there you decided to try a third venue, this one, albeit with the complaint masked behind a complaint about process. And in your response to me you have again alleged with no basis that administrators have sanctioned you solely because of your political views, not as you have been repeatedly told because of your behaviour. As for hounding, seeing the timeline of you nominating one of your opponent's articles for deletion minutes after getting into a new dispute with them is all the evidence I need to see.

    Frankly the existence of this thread on this page, not to mention your responses in it, suggest that the sanction you're challenging should indeed be overturned, but to a topic ban from the area of dispute, and/or an interaction ban with BullRangifer. I don't see how anything less will limit the disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

    • @Ivanvector:I apologize for the broken link, but what an absurd response. Since when is an appeal ForumShopping????????? Read the appeal process which gives me the option of request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). I have every right to bring my appeal to this forum. And as for WP:HOUNDING, it defines hounding as Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. (emphasis mine), a single nomination of an article for deletion cannot be hounding by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Personally I would think a strategy in defending an obviously retaliatory AfD nomination in response to a content dispute with someone you're known to be enemies with would not involve wikilawyering the definition of harassment, but here we are. It is not promising that you think there can be any justification for that behaviour, nor that you believe there is a minimum number of incidents that must occur before admins can act on obviously inappropriate conduct. And I see that since my reply above you've again alleged that someone's comment on your vexatious behaviour is due to political ideology, not because you're continuing to be a vexatious litigant. Is it your position that anyone who identifies an issue with your behaviour must be a political opponent? In your mind does it follow that you can do no wrong? Or is there any way that you will hear that your abuse of the noticeboards to win advantages in content disputes is textbook tendentious editing? These complaints and this sanction are about your behaviour, and have nothing to do with your or anyone else's political positions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

        Ivan, how is you repeatedly accusing Rusf of being a vexatious litigant or making vexatious filings, any different from Rusf accusing admins of being biased? You two are just trading aspersions here, which I suggest is not productive. Levivich 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn Given how that last AE went and how vague the sanction is I am not sure there is much other choice. If a sanction is so vague that a reasonable person may not understand it then that is unenforceable. As for the biased admin bit, I can see where they are coming from. When an admin like JzG is pushing for a topic ban of an ideological opponent that is just wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's weird how far the Overton window has moved. I am a centrist. My beef with Rusf10 is not about ideology, it's about vexatious complaints - trying to use Wikipedia processes to gain an advantage in content disputes. The TBAN I was arguing for was, as should be obvious from context, from making reports about BullRangifer. There's ample evidence that this has been a problem, IMO. Guy (help!) 09:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a centrist. are you sure you're not a leftist moderate? --JBL (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, oh I might be, I suppose. Guy (help!) 18:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You are well known for your red vs blue rants, that does not need explaining.[143] Second when you say Rusf10 TBANned for 1 month from AP2.[144] it seems fairly clear you are trying to TBan them from AP2. Apologies if I missed some context where what you wrote meant TBan from making reports on BullRangifer. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:After reading this, I now see what Guy's problem is and why he is incapable of being neutral. He believes that whatever his views ae must be centrist and everyone else to the right or left of him has some type of fringe view. Problem with this is that there are very few to the left of him and a large number of people to the right. At least in US politics, his starting point is that the "Democratic Party is a centre-right party", meaning that the Republicans must be far-right. He believes the Republican party is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with these views needs to stay the hell away from AP2, especially in any administrative role.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is kind of crazy that they were acting as an administrator on a topic that Arbcom warned him not to do.[145] PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, take Guy's !vote out of the equation, and there are still a number of admin in favor of the sanction. This wasn't a unilateral admin action by Guy, or by the closer Johnuniq; it was the consensus of a number of admin at AE (though some dissented). To make the case that any one of the supporting admin acted out of political bias requires far more evidence than has been put forward so far; to make the case that all the admin involved were acting out of political bias would take several arbcom cases' worth of evidence. I'm not convinced political bias was an issue. I am convinced that there is a culture at AE that simply does not value procedural fairness (other values are held higher, such as reaching "the right outcome", and efficiency), and that needs adjustment. Levivich 04:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall I agree. The bias is a side issue here that can be addressed elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn per PackMecEng and Hut 8.5. I was confused by the close as well, there seemed to be consensus that the reported user's conduct was inappropriate, and I think that the case was closed prematurely. Jdcomix (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn Either the complaint was frivolous or it was justified. If a cross-section of admins at AE find the complain was justified and warn the person against whom it was filed, you cant then turn around to the person who filed it and accuse them of making frivolous complaints. Its outright stupidity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn per the OP, and more importantly, per the fact that I don't believe we should ever prohibit any editor from filing an administrative complaint in good faith, for fear that it will not be actioned. A result of "no action" or "no violation" is always subjective, and has absolutely no correlation with whether a report was legitimate and made in good faith, and such a result should absolutely never be used to assume bad faith on the part of the reporting user. Worst case scenario, in these situations, the status quo is maintained. There is no disruption to the project. So I don't see why we should use that to justify sanctions. Yes, if an admin complaint is obviously disruptive, unjustifiable, or trolling, that's one thing, but that inherently has nothing to do with an admin report that doesn't get actioned. We're pretty lenient, so equating "no action" to "frivolous report" is actually pretty insane. I'm extremely concerned with any attempt at "chilling" the threshold that users will file admin reports. We should always err on the side of seriously considering any complaint, even if we find it to be inactionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Hmm per Hut8.5. I am usually with Swarm, and it is true we shouldn't prohibit any editor etc., but it's the good faith that was questioned here. If four AE reports result in a few warnings, one might say the reports were more or less justified--but one might as well say that going to AE for things that don't result in more than a few warnings is like aiming a cannon (four times) at a mosquito. That is the vexatious part. Editors who run to AE this frequently and with so little result, that's disruptive. I don't know what a good measure is here, though, but I do not support overturning this. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, exactly. The options at this point should be: (a) grow a thicker skin or (b) leave each other alone. Guy (help!) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Drmies: Guy's suggestion above is to ban Rusf only from making noticeboard complaints about BullRangifer; I only kind of disagree. It's true that the most recent few of Rusf's complaints have been against BullRangifer and have resulted in no more serious action than a warning, and that the reviewers at AE are exasperated by that behaviour. But from Johnuniq's comments at the start of this section it's apparent that Rusf's disruptive behaviour is not only targeted at BullRangifer, but seemingly against any editor who opposes them within the AP2 sphere. It seems to me the prescription is a simple topic ban, not an exotic restriction like any that have been proposed thus far. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't see why people are treating the incivility as if it is exceptionally petty, and the reports unreasonable, as you suggest. I really don't understand it. The reported diffs consistently show that BR engages in direct, unsubtle personal attacks, in a contentious DS area, again and again, and has been doing so for well over a year, at least. I really don't understand why AE admins are sketchily staring at the ground as if we're unsure what to do at every turn. The complaints 100% have merit every time, and we just keep warning and warning, and now we're at the point that it keeps happening in spite of the warnings, and the complaints keep coming in, and we're really going to draw a line in the sand for the complainant, while offering yet another useless warning to the offender? Dealing with protracted moderate incivility, this is probably the biggest use that AE has, yet for some reason we're acting like our hands are tied here and that Rusf needs to quit "poking the bear", when objectively, he's not doing anything wrong and getting punished for it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged and emailed regarding this, note that I've been aware of this discussion, though I have yet to read it closely. I should also note that I am also not familiar with the history of and between the participants, so I have yet to form an opinion, one way or another. El_C 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Disclaimer, I participated in the AE discussion that ended with the above sanction, and I was largely responsible for its wording. I understand the argument that a report that results in a warning cannot be considered frivolous, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. If it happens once or twice, fine. But if you are making the same report time-after-time and the result is consistently "Meh, this doesn't rise to a level that needs admin intervention, but please be more civil" then it starts becoming disruptive. And when you report the same user for the same thing 4 times in a row ([146] [147] [148] [149]) for progressively less-uncivil comments (compare the single offending diffs that were reported on 12 March 2019 vs. 22 December 2019) it's getting into WP:Hounding territory. I would disagree with Swarm's assertion that no-action reports are not disruptive to the project. They can be very disruptive, and the 13,000-word 10-day long AE thread that led to this sanction is an example of that. In any case, the WP:Boomerang is a well-established part of Wiki-culture, and putting it into the form of a warning shouldn't be that controversial. If you look closely at the wording of the sanction it doesn't prevent the user from filing reports, nor does it make the sanction automatic when a filed report is deemed frivolous. It says the boomerang sanction may be applied at the discretion of an uninvolved admin, which is basically just an explicit statement of how things already work for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Which of their previous filings would you apply that sanction too? Suppose any of those you listed were a new filing would any of those qualify as crossing the line for this sanction and why? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Awilley, you applied a No Personal Attacks sanction on one of the editors after AE #3. Are you saying that the conduct you sanctioned for didn't rise to the level that needed admin intervention? If the comments were progressively less-uncivil, then why did you apply a sanction after the third AE report? Also, if they were progressively less-uncivil, that means in your view, the comment that gave rise to AE #4, which I will paraphrase as "Do you have Aspergers?", was the least un-civil comment of the four AE reports? The prior three were worse? Levivich 03:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Why did I take action after AE#3? Because I saw an unhealthy pattern emerging and I wanted to disrupt it. If I hadn't taken action on my own the report would have most likely been closed with no action. (You had Sandstein, Masem, and T. Canens, all saying "no action" with a couple mentions of a possible boomerang.) ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, and it worked, for ten months, where previous warnings did not. All I'm saying is, we can't now rewrite history and pretend like there was nothing to those earlier reports, that they were "frivolous" or "vexatious". Those were real PAs like "When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe" (AE #1) and "Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy" (AE #3). I'm not saying throw the book at BR or anything, and I agree with the viewpoint that the comments involved in AE #4 were a good-faith mistake and not a malicious personal attack, and BR struck the comments in #2 and seems to have taken on board feedback from #4, so that's all well and good. But it's really not accurate to say that Rusf's reports didn't have merit. (It's also not accurate to say that this happened frequently; 4 reports, or 4 uncivil remarks, in 18 months, is not many, especially among users who are very active editors in the same DS topic area. I note that the time between report #1 and report #2 was 9 months, and the time between reports #3 and #4 was 10 months. That's not frequent, and if the reports are "frequent", then that means the underlying PAs were "frequent", too.) Levivich 05:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a bizarre response. Every single one of Rusf's complaints were found to be legitimate (and formally logged as such). It's insane to simultaneously railroad him for "frivolous reports". Incivility is a policy violation under the purview of discretionary sanctions, "don't be so sensitive" is not. Reporting legitimate violations is not harassment, and saying it is both makes excuses for policy violations and denigrates actual harassment victims. Perhaps if BR actually respected the repeated warnings he was given, we wouldn't have so many complaints. Perhaps if AE admins actually took the purpose of DS seriously, we wouldn't have so many excuses. I give zero damns if someone thinks Rusf is needs to "grow thicker skin", our job as an admin is to enforce policy. If you find legitimate good faith complaints to be a nuisance, you should step away, not punish good faith users for literally doing what they're supposed to be doing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Over at the portals disaster you are arguing that an admin who repeatedly breached CIVIL should not have been desysopped. I agree because the background to reports should be investigated and taken into account. Arbcom disagreed and operated on a principle of "who cares about the background, bad words = sanction". The background at the AE report is outlined in my statement above. Admins agreed that BullRangifer needs to shut up regardless of provocation, but the provocation in this case was sufficient to give the result that occurred. Do you have any comments about that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: What provocation are you talking about??? There is no possible way I provoked bullrangifer. I don't know why you can't understand the facts. Bullrangifer came to my talk page to attack me over a dispute about an afd that didn't involve him at all. There was absolutely no provocation on my part. Stop trying to turn Bullrangifer into a victim.Rusf10 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• My point was that part of taking civility enforcement seriously is not blindly enforcing CIVIL, but realistically examining the context of incidents of incivility, and differentiating between humans being humans in contentious circumstances and people with actual behavioral problems. This does not mean incivility gets a free pass, but incivility in heated content disputes where it may have been provoked and is voluntarily resolved should be taken into account in mitigation. BHG should not have been desysopped for incivility confined to a singular subject area which she pledged to resolve voluntarily. I'm not sure what the comparison is here. BR is a user who was not unfairly sanctioned by way of Arbcom, but instead repeatedly warned to no avail. BR does not appear to be taking the warnings seriously, nor do I see Rusf's actions as in bad faith and/or unreasonably provacative. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - A filing that results in the accused receiving a warning cannot be deemed frivolous, else a warning would not have been administered. OID put it well: It's outright stupidity (apostrophe added by me). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn The AE filings can't both be frivolous and result in warnings to the accused party. It's a shame that (to be intellectually honest) differences in ideology led to this sanction being placed at all. - DoubleCross (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. Many things on wiki are falsely characterized as mutually exclusive when they are not. This is one of the few instances where things should be mutually exclusive but painted to be not as such. I am having a really difficult time trying to understand how a "frivolous" report leads to the respondent being warned (unless you're suggesting that the warnings were inappropriate in the first place? But I don't see anyone entertaining this idea). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Devil Woman

I tagged Devil Woman for G6 housekeeping speedy deletion two days ago and it's somehow gone unnoticed. Can an admin take care of this please? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer,  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Move request

Wondering if someone can close this move request. Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_2_February_2020

The article is getting about half a million pageviews a day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I was going to close this but all requested moves are supposed to run for a minimum of one week (similar to AfDs). Given the absence of a clear consensus as well as RM-closing policy, let it be open for a week, I (or someone else) can close it when it elapses. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would still close this now as a "no consensus" – the thread is huge, shows no sign of getting to a consensus, and is only distracting from the work going on. Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

4 days is enough for consensus to emerge (WP:CCC e.g. Ergo Sum's RfA), although I doubt it will. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We actually have an interesting situation here. It's possible in a few days another title may be preferred by most currently supporting the change [150] [151]. Looking at the discussion, it sounds likely the concerns of some of those currently opposing may be addressed too. (But not all.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that WP:SNOW should apply to this discussion. A SNOW to No consensus would be strange. In any case, the continuing discussion is useful and may lead to better names. Though the claim that MOS favors the official name should carry some weight, the present official name seems to be viewed as temporary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, two related articles Wuhan Institute of Virology, and their lead virologist Shi Zhengli, have been the subject of internet conspiracies (and even propagated by Washington Examiner – which should be deprecated on WP), and have been discredited (e.g. The Guardian, Washington Post), and contain BLPviolations that led Twitter to ban Zero Hedge over trying to repeat it (e.g. CBS). This will need more eyes (and potentially page protection) as IPs/new editors are trying to push them. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are going to need admin help on these two pages now as we have a new editor, DavidGeorge1977, restoring conspiracy theories with these BLPviolations (and has been reverted several times by various editors). Can an admin sort here (or do I need to repost ANI/3RR? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

3RR not withstanding, editor has stopped for the moment and moved discussion/plea to my talk page. I have directed them to the talk pages of the relevant articles (looks like in one case they have posted there) and to provide sources for other editors to review as consensus is currently fringe/conspiracy; not valid controversy Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to close the move request and simple request a new one. But no worries either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor from editing the two pages in question for 1 week for the edit warring. Talk pages or elsewhere on the encyclopedia are naturally permitted. --Izno (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Izno, am discussing it now on the TP and they are listening. There are some wild stories on the internet on these two subjects. Britishfinance (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A move request on a similar topic is taking place at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and is due to be closed (after a full 7 days) at around 19:00 UTC. That page as well has about 2 million views in the last 3 weeks, so it would be helpful if that could be processed quickly by an uninvolved closer once it's expired. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Following up, I'd like to request help with a close at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)#Requested move 31 January 2020. I am involved, so I can't do it myself. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Doc James and Dekimasu: Closed both, let me know if there's more clarification warranted on the closes. -qedk (t 桜 c) 08:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• A bit of a hijack, but could someone please handle the copy-paste move of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that's lurking in the page history of 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. There are some really strange activities happening with respect to individuals protesting the no consensus closure of the RM, and an admin with a trout would be greatly appreciated. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've cleaned up the page history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Like Thanks for the fast action! 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just like to say again, much thanks for the experienced folks that have been coming to the talk page and handling the new RMs that have been popping up every couple days. I am starting to wonder if there’s a WP:AC/DS that can be used on the talk page to control things. There’s a lot of out-of-control WP:IDHT/axe grinding going on (currently there’s one proposal suggesting that unregistered editors be barred from participating in future RMs, and at least four or five other “let’s brainstorm new article titles” threads that take the position that a new title is needed and seek to exclude voices that disagree, and otherwise casting aspersions at people who are getting worn down by this endless pushing of a page move). 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  (crossposting to Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly some administrative action needs to be taken here. I’m getting accused of trying to avoid scrutiny by editing while logged out (while being marked as a SPA by the same person), getting accused of “bludgeoning” the process by the same people doing the bludgeoning, and all the while the same clique of editors keep opening RMs and affiliated discussions in a transparent attempt to change the outcome of the previous RMs. It has become a very unfriendly, aspersions-filled mess of a discussion. And while some of that is typical for current events, the undercurrent of “anyone who doesn’t support this particular outcome is a sinophobic racist” makes participation very difficult. Can someone please help? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfPP is backlogged

I cleared out what I could but unfortunately I have to get up early tomorrow and can't remain online much longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. The backlog is back today. Seems a feature of RPP now. Has an admin that was focused on RPP left/taken a break? Is it time for the RPP to be unbundled as a PERM? We are facing the inevitable consequences of the ever-rising ratio of articles-to-active admins (the numerator always rising, but the denominator going opposite). Britishfinance (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I support unbundling RPP – if it were unbundled I would apply for it and help out at RFPP, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Levivich 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I suspect that practical implementation would require changes to the MediaWiki software. Right now there's only one permission flag, 'protect' (if I'm reading the permissions table right), and I don't think that we would want to give all protection powers to everyone. If we did have an unbundled group, I'd say it should only have access to apply semi-protection and maybe pending changes protection...we don't want people with these perms protecting pages at a higher level than they can edit (which rules out full, move, upload, and creation protections, probably also template). I'd also feel better off if non-admins weren't able to apply ECP - the wording is a bit ambiguous to me, but it looks like it's primarily a sanctions enforcement tool, which is something I think is better left to the admin corps. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: We've had some fairly detailed discussions about micro-unbundling RFPP [one], where the main thrust failed, but a variation suggested by NeilN gained some support. There was a partial [up discussion] (the header is rather inaccurate to the much stricter considerations we discussed - I summarise it further in. I'd limit it to even fewer than was mooted there, but slightly extend the max time. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You know it was a long time ago, but I remember a discussion about unbundling the tools. IIRC the issue was that if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem becomes a nail, so the concern was that page protectors would protect pages from all non-autoconfirmed editors when what they should be doing is just blocking the lone vandal responsible. More recently I remember a discussion about allowing a vandal-fighter user group that would have the ability to block for up to 31 hours in addition to page protect to solve that issue. I don't think it went anywhere possibly because of technical issues. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the backlog is under control for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing templates

I'm a little nervous about editing a template myself: could someone competent in editing templates help please? See Template talk:Self-reference tool. I failed to get a response to my request at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 February 8#Editing templates. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, done. As I mentioned on the template's talk page, using the appropriate edit request template will likely get a quicker response; not many people have templates on their watchlists. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Rollback all tool

I have an issue with the rollback all tool that rollbackers can see on users contrib pages. If you were to accidently hit it what would happen? Does it have a confirmation box or does it automatically do it? God forbid I am trying to hit one of the other boxes on myself and rollback my 9 years worth of edits... Also what if a new rollbacker were to get their hands on it and misuse it or "test it" it can be very damaging. I think it should be a separate process to get approved for it. Thanks. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

https://gyazo.com/5cb012b0e2c6f1c26b808f93437a7777 is what I am referring to. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not a standard feature of MediaWiki, but rather a script that you have installed to User:Bobherry/monobook.js. (Starting from the comment "Mass rollback function".) It appears that it will prompt you for an edit summary, which you can "cancel" out of to cancel the mass rollback, and that it will only roll back the edits currently displayed on the page (the last 50 edits, by default). ST47 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Looks like editors are not impartial when it comes to this article. I think you can imagine why. So, Afd voters aren't impartial, closing admin is not impartial and just takes a moon shot delete, and now we're at DRV.[152]

A different admin has said they would like to close it as delete, but (I assume) they would like two more admins to back them up for a group close. The delete argument is "X" is a POVFORK of "history of X". That's obviously silly, unless you want the article destroyed for some other reason. If ISCENSORED existed, it would be a SNOW based on that.

So, if there's some sort of redelete, could we get some admins that don't have partiallity towards the subject? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the humor page m:MPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

True dat. But I feel like if people ask themselves 'do the words "race and intelligence" piss me off' they can quickly see if they are impartial. Then they can decide if they want to pretend to be impartial or not. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I can be impartial. I can emulate impartiality.-- Deepfriedokra 07:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Two admins have already #Anyone up for a team admin close? expressed a willingness to participate in a team close and have confirmed at the DRV if it is overturned they remain willing. AFAICT, neither of them have express an opinion on the article. I don't know which admin you refer to, but I think it's clear as with any contentious AfD (or close), an admin with an existing clear opinion on the outcome should not close. An admin who has already read the discussion and formed an opinion I don't see any harm in them taking part. Of course as a team close, it's likely the final close will be based on discussion from them. The only problem would be if one of the other admins planning to close has read their opinion. Note that although I'm not an admin and wouldn't participate in this close even if I was, race and intelligence does piss me off. But although I haven't really read the discussion, I don't support the deletion either. So while I don't think people with a strong opinion of the subject should be a closer, I don't think we can assume being 'pissed off' means they would want deletion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) What is it that you hope to achieve by opening this here? The matter is currently in deletion review, which is the proper process. You are mistaken when you speak of "Afd voters," as has been pointed out. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion between editors, which is why the off wiki canvassing for votes (not by you, just to be clear) was wrongheaded. One admin has closed as delete and I and others have not simply endorsed a decision we believe to be correct, but spoken up to request an overturn and team close with the team that was already partially assembled - a non standard innovation that risks setting a precedent - because we recognise the importance of demonstrating that the discussion has been carefully considered and treated fairly, and we do not know how that team will rule on the issue. AfD is not a vote, and they will look at the arguments instead. You have asked for the closing admin's opinion simply to be overturned, and that opinion is now part of the deletion review discussion. So again, what do you hope to achieve by bringing the matter here? Allow the process to work please. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope to achieve total non censorship on all subjects! It's a pretty crazy objective; whatev. Also, I took a 10 year hiatus, and before I came back I would say !vote instead of vote, but that was never true. I've decided to not dissemble. And it's going to piss people off. The truth is the most annoying thing ever!Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The words race and intelligence piss me off because we have articles on both, and both effectively tell us they are each extremely ill-defined concepts. Claiming that we can make sense of an apparently certain connection between two ill-defined concepts really is just silly. It's an incredibly bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest, hilo. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent) You guys said a lot. I'm going to do one line replies as I see fit. Jo Jo wrote a decision of delete and also asked for help from two other admins. Help for what? To change his mind? Probaby not. I think Jo Jo wanted a couple more admins to provide cover. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's Jo Jo's delete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be in the DRV. Also, why are you asking Jo Jo about their political opinions on their talk page? Note that you have misrepresented the timeline. Jo Jo began delete and was uninvolved at the time. Whilst forming an admin team, another editor closed. DRV was opened and requested comment from Jo Jo, and already at that point, I and others had suggested Jo Jo be allowed to complete and Jo Jo had made no comment anywhere of an opinion. Not sure how you found that draft, as I had not seen it, but as Jo Jo was the original closer and this was not published prior to that, the drafting is not inappropriate. Suggest again that you take this argument to the DRV. That is the correct forum to discuss this process. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this the timeline? 1) Jo Jo wrote delete rational and looked for admins to support his delete. 2) Someone else closed as delete (whoops!). 3) Jo Jo wishes he could have deleted, and people start organizing a new better delete around his old delete? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual timeline is:

• 10:09, 10 February 2020: Jo-Jo Eumerus tags the AFD page for impending close with a Closing tag.
• 11:25, 10 February 2020: Jo-Jo Eumerus begins a section at AN, asking whether there are any other admins who support a team close. A little less than two hours later Jo-Jo Eumerus puts a notice of the same on the AFD talk page
• After the deletion review is opened, about two days later 14:25, 12 February 2020 Jo-Jo Eumerus posts a statement on the deletion review page referencing a draft close they posted on the DRV talk page seven minutes earlier.

This is all public information. Also, asking for a team of closers does not imply that you are looking at a rubber stamp, and the other admins are under no expectation or obligation to apply my proposed close (either its text or its outcome). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You do realise that by posting a delete rationale before a team/panel of admins is put in place means you will likely attract only admins who agree with you, after all who is going to volunteer to battling with you to change the outcome when your mind and argument is already made up. You cannot have a panel of admins posting a close where none of them agree, so like I said you have made a move that attracts admins to back you up.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No; before Spartaz's close and the deletion review nobody had posted any rationale. And we don't know how the deletion review will end; for all we know it will be something other than "let the team reclose". And even if it is, I find it unlikely that a future panel will rubber stamp the first detailed draft close posted without any dissent. That's not how I've seen either deletion reviews or (to use a close procedural analogue) crat chats operate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am more thinking if you are selected to be on the 3 or so person ‘admin closing panel’. Not sure if you understood where I was coming from, which might be the fault of how I worded things above. My point is that you should be disqualified from being on the panel because of your action.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek Yes, it wasn't clear from your statement here that you were requesting a recusal. Actually, I was planning to recuse after filing my DRV statement. Now from reading some of the follow-up comments it doesn't seem like there is agreement on this point in the deletion review, but the DRV is not closed and done yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I believe he looked for two admins before he created the delete, just tagging it as undergoing a close. He didn't go and ask specific admins, so this seems a positive action for me - while yes, more admins would have helped create cover, it would also san-check his reasoning, and of course, the other admins might disagree (even a single admin disagreeing might pause discussion and indicate a possible NC). That comment should not be taken to indicate the close was irrational. I saw the request, but was on a phone call so didn't feel equipped to volunteer. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just want to address a premise of this section: if people ask themselves 'do the words "race and intelligence" piss me off' they can quickly see if they are impartial - this is nonsense. We don't demand that editors/admins/closers somehow refrain from having opinions about things. That's not a requirement for neutrality. It's only when it leads to an inability to follow NPOV that it becomes a problem. We're not going to hold off on closing a discussion about a topic on ponies because everyone likes them or nazis because everyone hates them in the hope that there's some robo-admin who can muster a close that will hypothetically satisfy everyone. The issue here is not bias of the closer; it's that some people don't agree with a close. We have processes for that, and requesting a multi-closer panel do so to gain buy-in is reasonable... but let's not mix this up with "you can't be impartial because you might have an opinion about the topic". After all, not having a feeling about something is a perspective, too, and one which can itself be quite outside the mainstream. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• When you boil it all down (fyi, I did not !vote in the AfD, but did in the DRV)....
  • This was a bad close, and SUPERVOTING in large no-consensus closes so that they get trapped in DRV (where the no-consensus is re-affirmed), is not appropriate, and is only going to deter people from participating at AfD. The close should be reverted to restore integrity to the AfD process (which I think has been the UNINVOLVED view at DRV).
  • The policy angle is with keeping the article (per last multiple AfDs) – it is a notable subject (huge amount of academic research on topic), and it is not a fork (we have thousands of legitimate "X", and "history of X" articles in Wikipedia). You would really have to use a more obscure/non-standard policy reading to delete this.
  • The AfD participation angle is a no-consensus – any assessment of the !votes is at least a no consensus (it actually got far more Keeps past half-way, slightly more Keeps in total), and while there were some IPs, there were plenty of AfD/DRV heavyweights arguing both sides. Again, why the XfD close was so inappropriate.
  • The "wrinkle" here is that there was a strong perception that the article is poorly written, and this has been a chronic issue for years. There is, therefore, a rarer, but legitimate argument, that it should be WP:TNT'ed and re-written (and ultimately, even if it was deleted, it would be easy from a policy perspective to justify recreation – you could not justify SALTing it, as it would be CENSORSHIP).

.... so, why not "delete and re-write" (e.g. tighter articles like Sex differences in intelligence), and let an order be restored to the Kingdom. Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that looks pretty bad is that the closing admin of the AFD seems have gone on vacation one minute after the questionable close and is yet to return. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what this discussion needs is more throwing around of bad faith and other idiocy. A cursory glance through Spartaz's editing history will immediately reveal that for at least the past year, they edit a lot for a day or two and then not at all for several days to several months. You should retract this comment. --JBL (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

question re archiving section at WP:Pump

Is it okay for me to archive a section at Village Pump Proposals that I opened? if not, then could an admin please do so? it is the section pertaining to a new community workspace. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

An archive bot will take care of it. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My new alternative account

Hi. I've created an alternative account, Miraclepine Amour, to perform maintenance edits similar to Izno's IznoRepeat. Please add WP:AWB and WP:XC access to Miraclepine Amour so it can function properly, and I'd also like my WP:AWB access removed. ミラP 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: This is more of a WP:PERM matter, than something that specifically concerns administrators. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks. I thought it would be better to unveil my new alternative account at WP:AN, and I've posted its intent its userpage. ミラP 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I've carried out both the AWB switch from Miraclepine to Miraclepine Amour and added the extended confirmed userright to that account. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. I've loaded Miraclepine Amour to AWB and please full-protect its talk page because its intent means it will never edit it. ミラP 14:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and QEDK: Just realized, every time I try to use Miraclepine Amour on AWB it gives me a "You have new messages" error. Is there a way to disable that? ミラP 15:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I think these might be either the user rights change message or the edit where you added a redirect to User talk:Miraclepine Amour. Might want to log into that account and manually unmark the notifications at Special:Notifications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I cannot paste the password, which I did not bother to memorize, from the profile box it is logged into. Is it possible to configure AWB so it won't give you the new messages notices? ミラP 16:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is to force you to log in your account and read those messages, because that's how people prevent massive damage from being done by people that are running AWB scripts that cause errors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: How am I gonna retrieve the password from my AWB then? ミラP 16:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Just open your browser and log in your AWB account manually as you would log in your regular account. That will clear the 'YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES' notice in AWB. After that you can resume things as normal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: That's the problem. I cannot log into my new alt-acct thru my browser because I cannot retrieve the password from my AWB's profile section. Every time I go to "edit profile", the copy function will not work. ミラP 16:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If you lost your password, then create a new account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: Thanks. Just block the current Miraclepine Amour account after removing XC and AWB from it, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page. I've filed a request to have it renamed and repurposed so I can usurp it when I'm remaking Miraclepine Amour. I promise I won't screw up remaking "Miraclepine Amour". ミラP 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: And I again screwed up with Miraclepinamour. Although I gave the alt-account a separate password from my primary account, somehow that password still won't work if I use that password on the alt-account. ミラP 19:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: Good news, everyone! I was able to log into Miraclepine Amour II and disable as many notification functionalities as possible. Now time to give Miraclepine Amour II AWB and XC. ミラP 19:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Done and done. Let's hope it doesn't blow up again. Password is now saved, I trust? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That and email attached if anything happens. Full-protect that account's talk page. I've withdrawn the username rename requests due to bureaucratic complications. ミラP 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Headbomb, and QEDK: And this confirms it's up and running. ミラP 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo_Eumerus: I don’t think full protection of User talk:Miraclepine Amour II is a good idea: as Headbomb notes, changing the talk page of an AWB user account is sometimes the only way to get the operator to stop a mass of undesired edits. –xeno^talk 14:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a terrible idea indeed. If the account is active, the talk page needs to be fully unprotected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed the protection, although I am not sure if splitting the discussion history is better than that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the redirect, most users will still post to the main account talk page while experienced editors who want to stop an AWB run can edit the redirect (perhaps just a dummy edit just to trigger a notification to the AWB software). –xeno^talk 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatneck and threats based on the Kudpung case

Slatneck (talk · contribs)

The contributions of this user make it pretty clear they exist only to intimidate. Clearly a sock of someone. Indef block and revdel of userpages and most contributions is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C)

@JJMC89: thanks. There's at least one edit summary that should be suppressed as well in their user talk page too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Got that one too now. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I see little reason to revert all of the contributions of someone who is found to be a sockpuppet. Likewise, What's next, going back and reverting everything a sockpuppet did? Why not simply let the neutral/good stuff stand? Buffs (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The request is "most contributions", emphasis mine, and I think you are making an implicit assumption that there are any neutral/good contributions for the case at hand. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...I mean why revert compliments: [153] [154]...those aren't "good"/"neutral" contributions... Buffs (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Because those are disingenuous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That's more than a little bit of an assumption... Buffs (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no. The proof is in the pudding. But hey, if you want to accept barnstars from people who make socks to threaten people and want to intimidate them as retaliation for speaking up against bullying, go right ahead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm only noting here that some are going around and reverting others' comments on talk pages. Even if this person is a pain in the butt/purveyor of insults/someone who's been banned and now sockpuppeting (which I have every reason to believe he is), there's nothing in our procedures that states all of his contributions should be reverted. There are some that are inappropriate and should be rev-del'd on sight. Likewise, any !votes of his should be discounted. But we don't have a policy that even encourages the undoing of previous benign, helpful, or complimentary edits just because he is banned/sockpuppeting. My issue is that this sets a precedent I don't think we should do. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:EVADE says (emphasis mine): "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I would say this last bit very clearly uncourages reverting edits exactly because he is evading a ban and sockpuppeting. It's not mandatory, but it's definitely encouraged in our policy. --Yamla (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected. The point was that it isn't mandatory. I took a softer stance than intended in my verbiage. I also recognize that I did not take into account WP:EVADE in its entirety. Buffs (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

But we don't have a policy that even encourages the undoing of previous benign, helpful, or complimentary edits just because he is banned/sockpuppeting. That's just not at all correct. Grandpallama (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I recently had a related story in my talk page. I mass rolled back edits by sockpuppets of blocked editor. Then an editor came to my talk page and complained about this. Here is what I think, roll back all edits, doesn't matter if they are good or bad. If the editor has few edits and you can easily find all of his good edits then don't remove them. Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time looking for good edits of an editor who have made more than 500 edits. Why would we block editors if they can pass "good-faith edits". I actually think allowing their edits encourage them to create more accounts.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's just Architect 134 based on the CU log. Nothing special. علاء would you mind globally locking m:Special:CentralAuth/Slatneck. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:  Locked globally --Alaa :)..! 20:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and علاء: should that account be flagged a sock of Architect 134? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We don’t always tag them anymore. Doesn’t serve much purpose for LTAs. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 novel coronavirus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, please close this requested move. Thank you! --Patriccck (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CfD backlog

The CfD backlog is rapidly increasing every day. Since about two weeks there are 0 administrators around to close any discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This gripe is not directed at you, Marcocapelle, but this thread is a good opportunity. Please, editors, when posting here to request admin attention to a backlog, please include a wikilink. If you want to say it's because administrators are notoriously lazy then fine, but all I'm saying is if there are two threads here asking for attention to a backlog, and one has a link to the log page and the other doesn't, I'm going to click into the linked one rather than scrolling all the way up to the top of the page to type the shortcut into the search box, or trying to guess what the right bare URL is. (this rant brought to you by tax season) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:CFD for anyone who like me, just needs a shortcut link.Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

fix on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – Procedurally closed and extra templates removed. ~ mazca ^talk 19:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This got nominated twice, and both nominations are in today's list. I've fixed most of the problem but I think an admin ought to take care of getting rid of the second nomination. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe seems to have cleaned this all up - one's procedurally closed, there's one template on the article, and the other discussion's running. ~ mazca ^talk 19:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well not quite. It was all a bit of a mess – I'm not sure the first nomination was listed in the log until today and the template is malformed. We should probably relist the first one to make sure it runs for at least a week where people can see it, but XfDcloser bugs out on it. – Joe (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's all fine; XfDcloser is bugging out because it's already on today's log page. Yes, the AfD was started badly on 28 Jan but it's in today's log so it should only show up as one that needs closing after 7 days from today. ~ mazca ^talk 19:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've just had to revdel 20+ edits from the history of this because they're BLP violations. The quicker it gets nuked the better, should have just let the PROD run. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg article needs "consensus required"

The Michael Bloomberg article has attracted an increase in activity since he announced his candidacy for president. The article needed much clean-up and there is new content that needs to be added, as well as additional media sources now available for preexisting article content. I think the article needs to have the "consensus required" discretionary sanction applied. There are new editors and editors inexperienced in editing politics articles who are not making full use of the talk page. Under this circumstance, because the article is under 1RR, editing is deadlocked process can be thwarted by either good faith or POV quick insertions of content that remain in the article due to 1RR. An example is this thread, and the associated article edits. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: you placed this page under 1RR. Do you have any thoughts on this request? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, I haven't followed this article or its talk page's editing history to really tell what's what. On the other, there has been a lot of activity since I've placed this article under 1RR. So, if more editors feel further enhancement of the editing restriction —such as supplanting adding consensus required to 1RR— would benefit the article's stability, by all means, I'm happy to implement that. Please update me via ping. El_C 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I meant to request adding the consensus required sanction to the existing 1RR. I believe this combination is the standard on the other American Politics article page sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an enhancement — I don't think the template allows anything but to add it to 1RR. I'm not sure why I said "supplant" — an absent-minded error on my part. Anyway, corrected (some slight refactoring involved for ease of reading). El_C 23:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m generally not in favor of prophylactic restrictions and 1RR is quite restrictive. That said, I’d be surprised if this isn’t required at some, soon point. O3000 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the consensus text resulting from the cited talk page discussion has worked out fine. I don't see the consensus requirement on Joe Biden or others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the discussion didn't seem dysfunctional, and the article history looks normal for a page with a lot of churn. I don't think an additional restriction would do much. Maybe a BRD restriction, which encourages collaborative editing rather than wholesale revision, but "consensus required" seems like it would just give second mover advantage to the reverting editor. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The consensus arrived at at this discussion was that we always start with naked 1RR until it is proven insufficient. So, that has been my modus operandi ever since with regards to these special enhancements (for example, revoking it in Media coverage of Bernie Sanders only to re-add it a few months later). Anyway, 1RR needs to be shown that it is no longer working as intended for an additional enhancement to be applied. El_C 23:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any finding of consensus in that discussion, or any advocacy of starting with only 1RR. At any rate, that discussion appears to me simply to favor the discretion of whichever Admin determines to place a page sanction, which makes perfect sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing it. And I, at least, operate accordingly. El_C 00:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has asked you to do anything other than operate according to your discretion. I was not the one who pinged you here. I brought this to the board because, as I just said above, Admin discretion makes perfect sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Discretion which also depends on the consensus that these beyond-1RR DS enhancements are not a starting point, is my point. El_C 00:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Having been in the train-wreck that's "Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders" and now finding myself on the Bloomberg page, I don't think "consensus required" is needed at this point. It will only serve to be used as a bludgeon against editors who have good intentions but can't be bothered with talk page drama. This is a content dispute between a handful of editors over a single paragraph and certainly doesn't need to rise to this level yet. In fact, while I tend to agree with the edits of the editor who brought this, I fear this is an attempt at WP:Ownership as all edits will require debating endlessly with them. Slywriter (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not about a single paragraph. It's happening on 6-10 separate topics within the BLP. You know what they say about good intentions. And "good intentions" includes political partisans whose good intentions are unrelated to Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just checking; Tourette syndrome TFA

Just checking if my knowledge is current, and whether I should submit a broad request for protection, or just ask for more eyes.

• Tourette syndrome is scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 3, 2020 (which means it's on the mainpage 3, 4 and 5 March). I have avoided this day for fourteen years for fear of coprolalia-related vandalism. Unless history fails, the 'pedia is going to get a whole lotta fuckity-fuck-fuck vandalism on those days.
• Pending changes trial failed at Tourette syndrome and the page has been semi-protected since forever: page log.
• Is it still true that the daily TFA can stay semi-protected while on the main page? (Sheesh, am I getting old that I have to ask this.)
• But even if TS is semi-protected, the entire suite of articles at {{Tourette syndrome}} is also likely to get hit on mainpage day, and I don't want to be submitting requests for protection during the Joys of Mainpage Day. Should I pre-prepare a WP:RFPP and have it in sandbox in case needed for other articles? Should I just ask for more eyes on everything in that suite for 3, 4 and 5 March? What's my next step for dealing with potentially a whole lotta coprolalic vandalism during the three days linked from the mainpage ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) SandyGeorgia, I'm screaming at the thought of this (and thank you for teaching me the word coprolalia). In this case, I think WP:PP is pretty clear: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred. Getting more eyes on this would absolutely help, but I don't think we can justify preemptive protection even for the expected childish humor that will hit us. RfPP will probably be the best bet. creffett (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sandy, do you have Twinkle activated? It's super easy to use it to request page protection with Twinkle turned on. You could consider activating it for the big event. It's at Preferences→Gadgets. Tick the box, an you're ready to go. — Diannaa (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've cross-posted this to WT:RFPP and WT:MAINPAGE. Creffett, the "not yet occurred" I think is dealt with by the number of admins who see what happens to the article every time they loosen protection. Thanks, Diannaa; I have never used Twinkle, so will try that, but this will likely be round-the-clock, on many articles, and more than I can handle alone. I need a plan :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, where has it been all my life! Thanks, Diannaa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I know right? No point constructing things out of stone knives and bear skins if we don't have to, eh?— Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

D'oh, I should have thought to suggest Twinkle. Good thinking Dianaa!. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the "just don't protect Today's Featured Article" guideline was deprecated a long time ago; WP:PP definitely does say "Today's featured article may be semi-protected just like any other article.", and Tourette syndrome is certainly an example of an article that's been repeatedly proved to require semi-protection. There'd certainly be no good reason to briefly unprotect it at midnight just to re-protect it after the fourth fuckity-fuck-fuck at 00:07. But yeah, just be aggressive in requesting semi-protection of anything else related that actually does get unwanted attention, I'm sure plenty of admins will be keeping an eye out at that time. ~ mazca ^talk 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all; discovering how easy it is to Twinkle resolves most of my concerns. Nonetheless, more eyes appreciated on 3, 4 and 5 March because I do need to sleep occasionally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The curse word additions are probably taken care of by edit filters for the most part. It's therefore possible to stop some of the edits you have described before they even occur. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting part of a page's edit history

• Again, I would be thankful if you could introduce an ability to delete some (rather than all) of a page's edits in one action. Again twice just now in the course of my history-merging, when using Special:MergeHistory, I have had to waste my time and Wikipedia's server's time deleting the whole of a long edit history and then undeleting most of it, merely to delete a few of its oldest edits (which were all old redirects). This idea sometimes seems to surface and after a while to be lost sight of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh? You can absolutely delete just a few revisions at once. When you're looking at the history, just tick the boxes of the ones you want gone, then click "change visibility of selected revisions". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't know this either, but the boxes allow you to select. You are sometimes in a pickle if you want to delete a summary under one rationale but the revision under another and it is impossible to do without the boxes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anthony isn't talking about revision deletion. He is requesting the ability to do selective deletion, similar to how we have selective undeletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see the distinction. I forgot that revdeleted revisions are still visible to non-admins in the history, even if they're inaccessible. I wonder if the devs have just sort of decided revdel is good enough for most cases and never mind the difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Anthony opened phab:T213617 last year, although I'm certain it's been discussed before; I presume that's the "you" in the initial comment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Amorymeltzer, JJMC89, Premeditated Chaos, and QEDK: In "Again, I would be thankful of you", "you" means Wikipedia's maintenance system in general, and "of" should be "if".
  • As User:JJMC89 pointed out, there are 2 processes involved here:
    1. Deleting, as accessed by a web page name of type "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=page_name&action=delete", or is done if an AfD discussion yields "yes".
    2. Hiding, as accessed by the 2 long clickables at top right of an edit history display as seen by an admin, marked "Change visibility of selected revisions" and "Edit tags of selected revisions".

• Above, I was writing about deleting. Some people in the discussion in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213617 also seem to confuse these two processes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anthony, maybe you have communicated this elsewhere, but it seems to me that the problem may be that you don't blow your own trumpet enough. Have you told the developers dealing with the phabricator report that you are almost certainly the most prolific user in the world of history merge in Mediawiki, so you know what you are talking about? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Amorymeltzer, JJMC89, Premeditated Chaos, and QEDK: I have appended a new message to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213617 . One complication is that one of that discussion's main contributors, a Wikimedia member called Setian, is stated to be "disabled". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Amorymeltzer, JJMC89, Premeditated Chaos, and QEDK: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T213617 contains usernames of Wikimedia users who have contributed to that discussion; but how can I send messages to them? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  They (and others) have already been notified by your comment yesterday, depending on how they've customized their preferences. You can use "@" to specifically mention individuals on phabricator (like a ping here), or click through to find their MW username, but those are just people currently interested/watching the topic, not necessarily anyone who is volunteering to do the work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• API:Mergehistory mentions a "timestamp" parameter that looks like it could be used to move edits such as these out of the way. Is this parameter available in the special page? Peter James (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• An important difference between deleting and hiding (as defined in a message above) is that, if a page is moved, hidden edits move along with it, but deleted edits do not move along with it. This is important in history-merging and history-splitting. We need to keep both facilities: deleting and hiding. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion and recreation of a page Export control

There was a page on Export control I was working on. Originally, this page just had a redirect to Trade barrier. Given that this is an interesting topic and something in which I am knowledgeable, I decided to replace the page with a skeleton of an article, and continue to work on that article. There were a couple of reversions back to the redirect, but each time I either left a comment, or left some words in the talk page. It would appear that user:Polyamorph deleted the page then recreated the page, this time with a redirect to Export, destroying all the work, the history of the work AND the talk page. All my work here was in good faith, and from a place of knowledge. To me, this appears to be a case vandalism by another editor, and also removing the possibility of discussion. Can someone give advice about how to restore this history deletion? Is this sort of behaviour acceptable? 185.176.76.225 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the article as part of WP:NPP I moved the page to WP:Draftspace as it was undersourced and clearly under construction. You can work on it here: Draft:Export control. When it is ready you can submit it for review at WP:AFC. If my action is considered inappropriate then I am happy for any auto-confirmed user or admin to revert it. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The activity is reasonable, but the manner in which it was conducted clearly leaves much to be desired. 1. Page history was deleted. 2. No link was left to Draft:Export control. (Or if there was, it was in a non-obvious location) 3. Talk: page was removed. 4. One rationale is 'undersourced', yet the article as moved has 2x references for the small amount of content that is there already, so that's a dubious claim. 5. Most critically: No description of this activity was left on the page.

Can the process under which such actions are taken be improved so as to address at least some of these shortcomings? 185.176.76.225 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I did notify you, but as you are not logged in the message was posted on a different ip address you were using. I have posted the same message on the talk page of the current ip address you are using. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It probably makes more sense to do one or more of: 1. Have a description of the move activity on the History, ideally including a link to Draft: . 2. Have a link to the Draft: on the Talk: page. 3. include a link / rationale under the #redirect (not sure about that one). 185.176.76.225 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And there appears to be no evidence of any notification [here] - can you provide evidence that you did indeed "notify"?185.176.76.225 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It was on .218 –xeno^talk 13:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) See [155]. While you're allowed to use dynamic IPs without an account, if you choose to do so you'll have to accept you may not receive notifications. Also, the move activity is in the history [156]. It's not in the attribution history because the entire page was moved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I see the attempt to notify now. It would still be better if there were appropriate links on the 'stub' page to refer to the Draft: page. That would save some misunderstanding. Thanks all for giving this matter your consideration.185.176.76.218 (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And I think the page at Draft:Export control is shaping up OK.185.176.76.218 (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Polyamorph: Moving the whole history to draftepace breaks the attribution of the original redirect. Evad37: any chance your script might be able to detect and warn when a user attempts to move rather older revisions like this? 185.xxx, thank you for your contributions. Please consider creating an account as it will be easier to collaborate. –xeno^talk 13:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  I would add that besides ensuring you receive notifications and making it easier to communicate with you in general, having an account means you can check your own contribution history to see if the page still exists, and if it does, where it was moved to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  The IP user can already check their own contributions, so I think you mean you get access to a watchlist? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  No I did mean contributions. While you're right that an IP can check their contributions, they need to remember which IP to check. Ranges help, but it depends on the size of the range, who else is active on it, and if there only one range. Many editors edit from both home broadband networks, and mobile networks. Some even edit from educational institution or work networks or libraries, or public wifi and a bunch of other networks. Keeping track of all that is likely to be difficult even if you try. A number of mobile networks, especially those with IPv6, have network designs which means massive ranges covering very large geographical areas and lots of people hence why we get persistent complaints about blocks. (T-mobile in the US is one particular example of this although the OP seems to geolocate to the UK.) Obviously the OP can't be editing from an account from an IP with enough problems to be blocked, but they could still easily be editing from a bunch of different IPs not covered by any one range, with a bunch of other editors. I think your range is overly broad, but I can't be bothered checking properly since it's largely moot; but is the OP the one who did all the Christopher Nolan stuff? if they aren't then trying to find something they did in November, even assuming it is covered by that range is clearly complicated. In the past year, I've probably visited Wikipedia from at least 10 different networks. I've probably edited Wikipedia from at least 5. If I know I edited an article while logged in, I can check Special:Contributions/Nil Einne and find any edits. (If I find edits I never made, I know I need to take more care with account security, fortunately that has never happened AFAIK.) Trying to find these if they were done without an account, on the other hand, difficult. Ranges also require you have some very basic understanding or use a tool, or get someone to help you and bookmark it. Since the IP couldn't even figure out which account was notified, I'm unconvinced it will be easy for the IP. By comparison, I can visit my user page and get a link to my contributions without any fuss. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of mediawiki namespace pages

I can't tag them for deletion, so posting here. Can MediaWiki:Flow-rev-message-suppressed-post and MediaWiki:Flow-rev-message-suppressed-topic please be deleted? The flow extension was uninstalled and so these messages aren't needed anymore - should qualify as G6. CC @AGK who created them. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also MediaWiki:Group-flow-bot-member - group doesn't exist here anymore DannyS712 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I deleted them...but they're still there? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: do you know what's going on here? The logs say I deleted the pages, but the links aren't red and clicking on them doesn't prompt you to create a page like MediaWiki:FooBar does. @DannyS712: are you sure the extension was removed? It feels like this is the result of something in the mediawiki configuration that's forcing these pages to exist with default message parameters. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also I've undeleted the two suppression-related interface messages out of an abundance of caution. AGK made those edits to prevent sensitive information appearing in public logs, and if the software is going to force us to have these pages, I'd rather it be that version than the default. I've still kept MediaWiki:Group-flow-bot-member deleted as an example of the problem. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: there are interface messages, so the default will always be there - a local page means that enwiki has modified the original message. MediaWiki:FooBar is a red link because `fooBar` isn't a defined message, but, eg, MediaWiki:Uncategorized-categories-exceptionlist exists. You can tell if a local message exists by if there is a history view available DannyS712 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case I'm not comfortable deleting the two suppression interface messages as G6. The local messages are meant to prevent sensitive information appearing in logs, and on the off chance some sysadmins make some silly mistakes or consensus changes to re-enable flow (I hope not) having this page around minimizes the chance of damage while having little to no harm otherwise. I view it similar to cascade protecting already full protected pages at WP:C-PI: an extra layer of protection to make sure accidents don't happen. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI section

It would probably be best if an uninvolved admin could close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_by_Darkknight2149. The editor involved has been repeatedly saying they will post a rebuttal of the issues against them, but that was 36 hours ago, and it seems like one is not forthcoming. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing something out-of-the-box with this thread on AN/I, so I'd appreciate it if everyone gave us a little space. After all, the worst that will happen is that the inevitable conclusion happens a few days later than expected, while the best is that one of our own feels appreciated for his work decides to change his behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Requests for Permissions is backlogged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, WP:PERM is fairly severely backlogged. If anyone can provide assistance, it would be appreciated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an admin does need to delete immediately, but for most of what almost all admins do, two people should deal with a deletion. So this change is a very good idea.-- DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I often tag untagged CSD candidates rather than deleting myself. (depends) This is not a bad idea.-- Deepfriedokra 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's not like an extra click to insta-delete is that much of a hardship. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in the 4 eyes principle in most cases, but as both DDG and Guy have noted, there can be exceptions, notably attack pages which should be removed as quickly as possible. I actually adopt a standard a little stronger than "blindingly obvious". I do a lot of copyright work, and I think I could argue that a brand-new article which is a 100% match to the "about us" section of a corporation's page constitutes blindingly obvious, but I still tag that, rather than delete that. (If somebody else has already tagged it, I will delete.) I think it's worth that to have another admin take a look. However, attack pages ought to be removed as soon as possible, and I vaguely recall I deleted something that was millions of bytes on the assumption that it would clog up the works to have it sitting around very long. The problem with removing the delete button may make it difficult to deal with those exceptions. I'll offer an alternative — if the article doesn't already have a CSD template, clicking on delete pops up a message saying something like "it is generally considered a best practice to allow two admins to take a look at an article before deleting. Does this constitute an acceptable exception?". I trust admins to make that assessment, and the purpose of the pop-up is to make sure someone working quickly doesn't accidentally delete something when they intended to tag it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No one (that I've seen) is suggesting we remove the ability for a sysop to delete in Twinkle. Only that the default behavior would be for tag when a sysop goes into Twinkle (except if there is an existing tag). Which I would definitely support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, exactly Guy (help!) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt, but speaking not as the dev but as a user, I'd be against it. If sysops are abusing/misusing CSD policy, that should be dealt with swiftly, but in general part of being a sysop is being trusted not to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here and say this is quite doable, but I'd prefer to see a little more consensus or discussion here before I write it up and make the change. There's a Twinkle preference option to default to tagging, but only 40-50 sysops have turned it on, so this would affect a lot of people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the default should be tagging. I'm not sure when the default is delete, if the page creator is notified about the deletion. One problematic admin behavior is deleting pages without notifications to the page creator which happens more than it should and often results in complaints or confusion. But this might be happening outside of Twinkle, when pages are deleted through the Page pull down menu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy either way provided the option remains. It's useful to choose to default to deletion rather than tagging when working through G13 candidates. --kingboyk (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think having the default set to tag (if there is no tag already) is a very good one. Yes there are exceptions (attack pages being one), but they are just that: exceptions. They're less common than cases where there is no urgency to remove the content ("speedy" means that discussion may be bypassed, not that it must be deleted quickly) and encouraging review is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, so I can't see what the admin version of the Twinkle prefs looks like, but how about using something like the set of checkboxes we have for "welcome page creator," "notify page creator," etc., but have it set whether you (by default) tag or summarily delete? That way, we could default to summary deletions for pages which need to go away quickly (attack pages), but also default to tagging for less-problematic pages (A7s). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what it is now – the default for sysops is delete, but users can opt to default to tag instead. About 40-50 have done so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I often delete things outright, but I also often just tag them, with the idea that a second pair of eyes can't hurt. I have noted that there are some people who insist that nothing should ever be speedied without being tagged first. I don't think I'd go that far. There is a "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" option in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, and I've got it checked. Hmm, I just noticed there's also a "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" option, which I previously had unchecked and just checked it. Transparency is a good thing. On the other hand, I often don't bother with Twinkle, I just do Page/Delete, which bypasses both of these. Given that I just turned on logging, however, I'm thinking I should stick to the Twinkle method from here on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I unilaterally delete G3s, G10s and G12s if I am absolutely convinced they meet the criteria, although usually I'm addressing somebody else tagging them. For everything else, I tag for a second opinion. Or, basically what DGG said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the general consensus above that 4 eyes are better than 2 and the absence of default-delete functionality is a useful speed bump for those of us that do not do a lot of deletions of articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that for some things it is better that 2 pairs of eyes go through it, even without twinkle or other scripts, we can just bluntly delete pages manually (without twinkle). I do believe that we do/should not need to make this as a rule (we are not a bureaucracy) and a deletion is not necessarily a final end to stuff - we have DRV, or a second admin eyeballing the content and discussing will also do. We have rather strict rules for what is allowed to be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria - if you believe that you are edging on these criteria, you tag, if you are further away from the criteria you AfD it. The rest is a speedy for which a second pair of eyes should not be needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Technical specification of proposed change

Per consensus above, the proposed change will do the following:

• The TWPREF option "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" will be turned on by default. Presently its off by default.
• For pages with a speedy tag on them, TW will default to deleting, regardless of the TWPREF option.
• For pages without a speedy tag on them, TW will default to either tagging or deletion depending on the TWPREF option.
  • In both cases, you can choose to perform the non-default action using a checkbox or by switching a radio button.
• To avoid any confusion/errors, the "Submit query" button will be renamed "Tag page" or "Delete page" depending on what action you're about to perform.

Is this fine with everyone? SD0001 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's fine by me, although I'm not a Twinkle user. Given the consensus above for a change and the lack of any comment here in several days, I'd say that this is most likely fine with everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Let's make it happen. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good idea. Hobit (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I spun this up a week or so ago; interested folks can review on GitHub, but barring any major issues I'll make it live in early March (mainly so I can notify folks through the newsletter). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/unreliable2.json

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 by DrKay

Could someone delete this per U1? I can't save that page with the CSD template because it only accept JSON syntax. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy cat username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. User:Vaselineeeeeeee1 as copied my username in a direct slight due to his disruptive edits being reverted at Italians. Is there any action that can be taken against this account as having a dangerously close username to mine? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Related accounts?

I've blocked that account as a username violation, hard block. That said:

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

appears to be related to this. I don't see anything immediately problematic with this account other than apparently starting the second, impersonating account, but I suggest eyes be kept on them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sorry for closing the discussion early, my mistake! Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0 16:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note I also reported this at WP:UAA a few minutes before the editor made the above report, so that can be closed too. Both accounts pass WP:DUCK - the duck test - for being socks of Geronikolakis‎. I have filed an SPI. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full-protection of banned users' talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm continuing the discussion at User talk:JIP#banned? because this is cluttering up [JIP's] talk page and causing unnecessary e-mail notifications. ミラP 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I know you want to do as much adminny stuff as possible, but I really wouldn't've thought you'd want to draw any more attention to the issue than you've managed already. ——SN54129 17:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean continuining from there? I oppose full protection because it's reasonable that a non-admin editor might want to add/update notes about potential socking or discussion of future unban-requests prior to formally filing. I don't think those are activities that non-autoconfirmed editors would perform, so I'm not staking a position on semiprotection on this logic. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: These users [157] [158] [159] are LTA who recieved lot of sock warnings too routine to be necessary. Also WP:DENY. ミラP 17:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The question was asked in general, I answered in general--as a standard specifically related to banned editors. The standard policy is quite clear that protection is allowed to prevent disruption regardless of what the baseline is for a certain type of page. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing to discuss, is there? The editor has undone the protection, not just on Eric's page but on all the others they've messed up today, and they've been rightly down wind of the shit storm that it's generated, on their talk page. Lessons learnt, I think. Cassianto^Talk 17:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JIP, I'm concerned about your response to Gerda Arendt's question. When an admin is asked why they performed some admin action, "Because I was asked to" isn't a good answer. Admins get asked to do things all the time, but it's up to each admin to figure out if the request is valid. If you agree to perform the action, you own it per WP:ADMINACCT. I don't see any reason to be protecting banned users' talk pages, but can't get too excited about that either way. I'm more worried about not providing a useful response to a valid question. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And you posted a similar comment here. Surely it's pretty obvious what you should do: either implement Wikipedia policy or, if you don't know what the policy is, nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: To clarify, that was Roy Smith, not JIP? ——SN54129 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it clear who "you" was. My message was meant as a continuation of Roy's message to JIP. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying! ——SN54129 18:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

JIP, you only undid the page protections that you performed today (13 of them), but there were 33 page protections done altogether. Could you please undo the other 20? Adding: Perhaps there were valid reasons for at least some of the others? We only protect when there's been abuse of some kind. Please explain. — Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Black Kite, Cassianto, Diannaa, DMacks, Gerda Arendt, Levivich, Phil Bridger, RoySmith, SandyGeorgia, Serial Number 54129, and TonyBallioni: Background history: JarlaxleArtemis was banned from all WIkiMedia (as JIP capitalizes it) wikis in 2006. HJ Mitchell salted it on 26 July 2010 after it was deleted by Prodego six days earlier as "un[n]eeded". After J Milburn accidentally created it and deleted it without salt, Reaper Eternal deleted it as G3 and salted. In December 2014, same happened with Drmies and Mike V before Guerillero salted it, which stayed that way until three months ago when WMF's Office account tagged it as "WMF-legal banned user" without full-protecting it. While J Milburn's mistake is trivial compared to this story, TTN, during her routing PROD/AFDing of non-notable articles on Dungeons and Dragons monsters and comic book characters, happened upon one article created by JA, and tagged it for deletion. These things usually send a notice to the creator of the article, but JA didn't need that notice sent to him because he was WMF-banned. That's why JIP used admin powers to delete the revision where TTN sent the notice. This happened again, so JIP went to the help desk asking for input, and after recieving positive feedback, went ahead with the salt. Four days later I asked JIP to do WhenDatHotlineBling and JIP complied. Afterwards I asked JIP to do every other WMF-banned user and JIP did so, without incident. After that I gave JIP a list of permabanned users to do - they are either users who are community banned, LTAs, users who must email Arbcom to get unblock or users who cannot edit own talk page. ミラP 01:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@ミラ: A bit of free advice... mass pings are terrible idea when you're in the hot seat. You gotta ask yourself if this is the hill you wanna die on? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More like getting yourself sucked down by quicksand, I'd say. EEng 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me see if I have this straight. An admin went to the ==>HELP DESK???<== for advice on whether to indefinitely protect a pile of user talk pages? Someone needs to go back to admin school. (We do have an amin school, right?) EEng 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "By appointment to their majesties of ArbCom". ——SN54129 08:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This explanation needs some explanation. The admin posted to the help desk, waited 3 measly hours, received no replies, so they replied to themself.[160] This 'positive feedback' was apparently an edit by Miraclepine (ミラ)[161], and this was taken as the go-ahead to fully protect the talk pages of all banned users? Grawp's talk page may be a nothing, but when it comes to the likes of Edgar181, Eric Corbett, and Jytdog, for example, I think this is really dodgy territory for reasons already explained. One of the users listed is actually a highly active sysop on another project. As for the logic of preemptively protecting talk pages of socks of banned users, I'm not really with that either. I could probably give a lot of examples of discussions I've had on the talk pages of socks of banned users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• This may be an inappropriate place to ask this, but the mention of JarlaxeAdams made me look at his userpage... Why is WMFOffice going around and replacing banned user templates (with LTA and links to ban discussions) with a notice that "Consistent with the Terms of Use, Til Eulenspiegel has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites." It's annoying because I don't recall anyone saying they could just replace the old notice about why the users were banned in the first place. Seems very... opaque. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  WMF Global bans supersede local bans. If globally banned users were ever to be unbanned by the WMF, then those pages could be restored to their community state. –xeno^talk 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Rockstone35 and Xeno: FWIW User:INeverCry still has the community global ban and sockpuppetry tags with the WMF ban tag. ミラP 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And looks like we now have another WMF-banned user's talk page to full-protect: User talk:জঙ্গলবাসী. JIP or anyone wanna protect that one? ミラP 00:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine: User talk pages are generally not fully-protected unless there is a comepelling reason to do so. –xeno^talk 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: After extensive discussion, I can't believe you are again requesting JIP to take an action that is not compliant with policy. You were already out of line, and now you double down? Be careful because you risk being blocked for your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per User:Bbb23, I will not protect talk pages of indefinitely blocked users unless there's a specific reason for it. Merely having been indefinitely blocked is not enough. JIP | Talk 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@JIP and Bbb23: Even if they're WMF-banned? Perhaps we need a WP:RFC to address this issue. ミラP 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to do something constructive instead of chasing a problem that doesn't exist. You also need to stop thinking of yourself as an administrator. I note that on your userpage you want to become one. I think that's highly unlikely based on your conduct to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even if they're WMF-banned. The only reason I originally protected User talk:JarlaxleArtemis was because User:TTN was leaving deletion notices on it, when JarlaxleArtemis wasn't going to do anything about them, having been WMF-banned for thirteen years. WMF-banned users who aren't receiving deletion notices are no problem. Like I said, just having been blocked or banned is not enough to have the talk page protected. JIP | Talk 01:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine - As may have said, user talk pages of blocked or banned users are only protected if required to enforce a ban or to prevent disruption. They are an extraordinary case, not the rule. Without looking at every page, I believe JIP's reversal of the page protections is in line with that. Is there any action being requested anymore? If there is something you think is still wrong here I'd be happy to take a look at it. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, JIP, Phil Bridger, Prodego, Serial Number 54129, Xeno, and Zzuuzz: No, not anymore. That said, I'm convinced full-protecting the UTPs of WMF-banned users does enforce the WMF-ban - because there's no point whatsoever in giving messages to people who can't even log in to accounts because they're globalled. On a little sidenote, should I get consent from Arbcom to have the sockpuppets of Edgar181 (who is already cbanned by a proposal by ToBeFree) globalled and/or to start a Meta-Wiki RFC on global-banning Edgar181? ミラP 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that other users also use other users' talk pages. In reply to your side question, my answer would be "really? still?". Every admin who has spoken here has been raising little red flags. More helpfully I would point to the Global lock policy, and also the Global bans policy, which say please don't waste other people's time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, banned editors shouldn't be blocked from their own talkpage, let alone the page being protected. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no good reason to protect those pages: per Bbb23, it's "chasing a problem that doesn't exist". We have well-developed theory (WP:PROTECT) about when to protect pages and we don't need to go around inventing new reasons to protect unless they help solve concrete problems, which this doesn't. 2601:640:10D:A93F:7B21:62B7:1637:847E (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, we don't protect pages unless there is ongoing abuse warranting protection, and we virtually never protect talk pages, unless in extreme circumstances, period. If we do have to resort to the "nuclear option" of talk page protection, we implement the preventative measure that is necessary, which is usually short-term semi protection at most, and maybe EC if the issue is ongoing EC sockpuppetry. That is the community standard set on this administrator permission, as reflected by policy. It's unreal that Miraclepine, an established user, seems incapable of understanding this, in spite of it being repeatedly explained. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's make it through the issue. Should I ask Miraclepine to file this immediate global ban request against Edgar181. Will it be possible to file it at RFC? 2600:6C4E:580:A:3DEF:F071:1D34:2CA7 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's see here: Edgar181 demonstrated crosswiki long-term abuse of multiple accounts (enough to global all of his socks without a global ban), Edgar181 "has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems" in the 12 years he was sockpuppeting, and he and his socks have been blocked on three wikis and engaged in crosswiki votestacking, so he meets all the criteria for a global ban. That said, as a courtesy I'll let ArbCom know in advance that I am filing the global ban RFC on Meta. ミラP 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's nothing else to do here (if necessary, an arbcom case can happen). An admin was wrong but gracefully recanted, the advice of the editor who influenced him also was mistaken (which I would consider to be in good faith). —PaleoNeonate – 10:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Black Kite, Cassianto, Diannaa, DMacks, Gerda Arendt, JIP, Levivich, PaleoNeonate, Phil Bridger, RoySmith, SandyGeorgia, Serial Number 54129, Swarm, TonyBallioni, and Zzuuzz: I think we're done here. I apologize for pushing my opinions a little too hard. I'll just let the talk pages of the WMF-banned users stay full-protected since they're of little consequence. ミラP 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but these mass pings are truly irritating. I'm not even sure what Talk pages are still locked. Please list them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) please don’t mass ping people for no reason. It’s disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Miraclepine: You know the list of all users have been globally banned by the WMF. You should read this before you protect the talkpages. 2600:6C4E:580:A:3DEF:F071:1D34:2CA7 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and TonyBallioni: Here. ミラP 15:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That is NOT a list of Talk pages that are fully protected. Are you determined to be annoying, not to mention disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: could you tell me why I was pinged here and what feedback is needed from me? (First, please have a look at the message at the top of User talk:SandyGeorgia about why I don't appreciate being pinged unnecessarily.) Also, when pinging others to discussions, could you please avoid removing from edit summary the section where one can find the comment? I had to search the page to find where I was being pinged, which was just more clicking around. I explained my reasoning for disagreeing at Eric Corbett's page; if you need that, you can link to it without pinging me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Just wanted to tell everyone involved that the discussion is coming to a close. ミラP 15:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but this is an adminly decision well above my pay scale (had I wanted to be an admin, and have to follow the policies in these areas, I woulda years ago). As long as I can edit User talk:Eric Corbett and User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (two editors who knew how to write and where attention from their talk page stalkers to some articles may be needed), I am not going to read this whole discussion, and I leave these discussions to those who follow the policies on such things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Here is a list of the pages that are still full-protected.

• User talk:JarlaxleArtemis
• User talk:WhenDatHotlineBling
• User talk:Timothy Usher
• User talk:Jaredgk2008
• User talk:Til Eulenspiegel
• User talk:Codex Sinaiticus
• User talk:Hasive
• User talk:Tokota
• User talk:Kompowiec2
• User talk:Cruks
• User talk:Wikinger
• User talk:Dijxtra2
• User talk:Meco
• User talk:INeverCry
• User talk:Rodhullandemu
• User talk:Billy Hathorn
• User talk:My Royal Young— Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa and Bbb23: I'd say deprotect Rodhullandemu's UTP. RH&E is still active on Commons, while the others are LTA or WMF-banned, and WP:DENY applies to giving them notices related to their conduct (sockpuppetry and in BH's case, AFDing of articles of dubious notability and notices of fair use images orphaned because of WP:CCI/20110727).. ミラP 15:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (I may not) Rodhullandemu used his talk page to launch attacks on others; leave it protected. There was some such similar issue with Hathorn, but my memory fails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: That's why we have the "view history" function on pages, provided the parts involved aren't deleted. ミラP 15:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, I am now following this discussion, have explained why I don't appreciate the pings, and yet you're still pinging me. And you're still removing from your edit summaries the name of the section where I can locate the ping for response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over. Can an admin close this? ミラP 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editnotice about well-intentioned proxy editing

• Shamsheer Vayalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shamsheer Vayalil, somebody of whom I'd never heard until recently, is somebody's obsession. The user is blocked but the sockpuppets keep on coming. The current modus is to post a plea for assistance on the talk page of some innocent and unsuspecting user-person, pleading inexperience or lack of needed expertise: Could the addressee please make such-and-such an edit? (The plea is polite, and, taken out of context, inoffensive. The previous modus was to post to the world in general, whether on the article's talk page, at the Teahouse, or at the Help Desk.) The latest example I know of is this. There's a chronology of them in "Have you been asked for help here?", within Shamsheer Vayalil's talk page.

The blocked editor should be free to appeal against their block, not to waste other people's time. It's clear from this that the (deliberately hideous) warning that I posted at the top of Talk:Shamsheer_Vayalil, asking people to ignore these requests, isn't quite doing its job.

Would it be appropriate to add editnotices to Shamsheer_Vayalil and Talk:Shamsheer_Vayalil? (For the former: "If you have been asked to edit here..." For the latter: "If you have been asked to comment here...")

Wikipedia:Editnotice is a how-to rather than a whether-to guide. I'm unaccustomed to editnotices and don't know about unwritten conventions (if any), and when I look for editnotices all I see are humdrum reminders to use this or that spelling convention: rather different from what I think would be appropriate here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the ongoing disruption, semi-protection may be preferable as a resolution. Banner blindness (deliberate or not) works against most edit notices.

That aside, it is personally bizarre that we do not have a guideline of any sort regarding where and when edit notices are appropriate. I have generally declined them where there was not an obvious consensus on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but no. The people recently editing the article (and, for the most part, even its talk page) are established, well-intentioned editors. People like [blush] me. Semi-protection wouldn't help. I want to alert neutral, benevolent editors to the probability that, if they've been asked to edit, the request has come from an as-yet unidentified and unblocked sockpuppet of a blocked user and therefore from somebody they may wish to report but should otherwise ignore. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I would just share my experience. I was asked for help on my user talk for a trivial issue on images, I checked the relevant images and decided to respond to the user on the article talk, which was when I became aware of this ongoing thread of asking help. I added myself to that list and since my reply was already drafted, I responded to the user on the article talk. My response has now been removed from the article talk but I am cool with it, since it had already served its purpose and the user had seen it.

I think an edit notice (Page notice) on the article with a link to the talk page thread is absolutely needed there, to inform the unsuspecting editors "who have been asked for help"--DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments here, DBigXray, and I'm sorry that you too have had your time wasted in this way. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would like to suggest that, instead of continually wasting the time (and ever-dwindling patience) of the people (like me) who have to now search for this user's (who claims to be a kid – I have my doubts) pattern every day, and that of the people he pesters before getting blocked, we block edits and account creation from at least Special:Contribs/223.230.128.0/18, for at least a month or three. There only seems to be one or two other editors in the range, who could hopefully get registered by exception, right?

Note the talk page already has a notice at the top (not an edit notice).

I would oppose granting of any appeal for at least a year (until there is some chance that they've acquired some maturity). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, one of the incarnations started visiting other articles, making POINTy edits to other high-profile articles (they seem obsessed with billionaires in general), so article protection would not be a complete solution. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's less much an interest in plutocrats in general than sensitivity to the most trivial perceived slight to Vayalil: that Vayalil's infobox lacks such-and-such that does appear in some other person's infobox. ¶ Incidentally, to see how ingratiating and time-wasting these sockpuppets can be, consider the interaction between sockpuppet "Alpha Rows" and (the of course innocent) Nick Moyes. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had recently posed this same idea (editnotices warning well-intentioned editors) at Consumers Distributing, where a very persistent spammer has been attacking the article for several years (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline) and has started pestering random extended-confirmed accounts to replace to their preferred version of the page, either by sandboxing it or by referring to an old revision that they like. Protection stops them from editing the page, but it doesn't stop the harassment. An editnotice wouldn't stop it either but at least, like someone else said, we've made an effort to inform their con targets before they inadvertently proxy for a banned editor. There hasn't been a lot of discussion at the article's talk page, it's not a very busy article, but the few comments that have been left support the idea. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well thought-out editnotice, Ivanvector. I've proposed on Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil that we adapt it slightly and use it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet has pleaded for assistance. Nobody has opposed the idea of an editnotice, or even expressed any reservations about it (other than that it won't necessarily be effective), so on it will go. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)