Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324

Wrongfully blocked

I have been wrongfully blocked by, I have no idea why.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.94.237 (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to provide the user name/IP that was blocked, as there are no other contributions on this IP. Usually unblock requests would go on the effected talk page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Donald Trump#COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69) was listed at ANRFC a little over two weeks ago, following months of contentious and pretty messy debate at Talk:Donald Trump. Myself and several others at ANRFC have highlighted the strong need for an experienced closer to come in and put a cap on the spiraling discussion, but no one has stepped up yet, so I'm escalating to the main noticeboard here. Is anyone willing to take this on?

(As always with posts of this sort, everyone here is reminded to please keep your comments to meta-discussion about the process of the close only. Comments arguing for or against possible outcomes of the close should be collapsed.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: That's not an WP:RfC, nor apparently was it ever one, so it lacks any sort of officialness or need for any sort of official close (and it shouldn't be listed at ANRFC, nor should it be DNAUed). There is however an RfC on the subject on that talkpage, which was opened August 5, so that has a few more weeks to run: Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: A statement on Trump and Covid-19 in the lead. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, the call for a close is a call to close the entire group of discussions, which includes both the RfCs and the non-RfCs. They're all on the same topic, just framed differently, so it wouldn't make any sense to try to close them separately. Calls for a formal close existed even before the launch of the currently open RfC, which is just another in a long series of attempts to try to frame things in a way that actually produces an outcome. No one has !voted on the RfC in the past week, which for Donald Trump's page is about as strong an indicator of exhaustion as you could ever find. I think most participants on all sides agree that it's long past due for a close, and that it would not be beneficial to let it run for a few more weeks. The closer will be able to draw from about 10 different massive discussions going back months, so there's zero question that there has been ample opportunity for participation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how things work on Wikipedia. Unless something is an RfC, it's just a discussion thread on a talkpage and has no site-wide input or official weight. That's why there have been so many threads on that page without resolution. Now that there is an actual RfC (which is the only way to really resolve things that have been discussed endlessly without RfC and without resolution), the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. Anything that really needs to be officially resolved with an administrator's binding close must be done via RfC (otherwise, someone will just open yet another thread, or open an RfC). Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'm pretty^{update: I just checked and confirmed} sure at least one of the previous discussions was an RfC, and it's not as though the current one is better formulated or has wider participation than the previous ones. It's a continuation of the sprawling mess, not much more or less definitive than the sprawling mess that came before it. If you think further discussion is somehow needed, fine, although I think you'd be very strained to make that argument. But if your view is just that we need to stick to the letter of the bureaucracy because those are The Rules™, then I'd suggest re-reading WP:IAR, which I hope is still alive enough that we're capable of cutting off RfCs that have very clearly gone long past the point of usefulness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound to me like you understand what an WP:RFC is and don't even want to check and see if there have been any (if there have been, the word RFC will be in the thread title). If there was a previous RfC, with an official close, then that is a binding decision and the decision will be implemented as official. The discussion you are talking about is merely a non-official article-talk discussion between people who have that page on their watch list, to see if they can come to a consensus. Since consensus seems unclear (namely, you're asking for someone to close it), that indicates that there is not yet a clear enough consensus to be implemented. If you want an official administrative close on something, propose it in an WP:RFC, with a clear opening statement that people can !vote support or oppose on. Otherwise, all you've got is a meandering mess that someone is going to contest the details of the minute it is acted upon. WP:RFC is for issues such as this that have had extensive discussions without success. They get site-wide input, last one month, and get official closes. That's why we have them. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you're going to link WP:RFC, then note the duration section, which states pretty clearly There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I agree with the spirit of your point that RfCs are often a useful tool for formalizing messy discussions, but your comments do not give me the impression that you are assessing the situation here on its own terms rather than blindly adhering to your understanding of the rules. We've both made our point; let's wait for some others here to weigh in now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlander is correct. This should have been done as a proper RFC. As is, it can only establish a local consensus, not a global consensus, and is likely to be contested as soon as it closes. Issues this large aren't typically solved with local discussions only, and require a real RFC with input outside of that talk page. A piecemeal approach isn't a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, as is? There have been multiple tagged RfCs, none as perfectly formulated as might be hoped, but the discussion has long since run its course. We're here now since it's ready for a close. I can't do it myself since I !voted in one of the earlier discussions, but please, take the hint. We would not be coming here if there were not a reasonably clear consensus that has emerged and just needs an authoritative stamp from someone uninvolved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then by all means, keeping having discussion after discussion and dragging it to AN. That is obviously a better solution, right? It is much easier for an admin to enforce the outcome of a real RFC. Disagree all you want, but it rather speaks for itself, that for contentious issues that rise to this level, a real RFC that is properly crafted is what you want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No she is not right. Discussions do not need to follow a formal RfC process. Unstructured discussions very much benefit from being closed by uninvolved editors. I'm not sure what "global consensus" has to do with a specific content proposal for the lead a specific article. - MrX 🖋 00:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlavender is absolutely incorrect that the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. If RfCs usually run for 30 days, it's because (1) many editors misinterpret the time of automatic de-listing as a recommended duration, and (2) most of those who don't would rather let it run for the full 30 than press the point. There is certainly nothing in written guidance supporting a 30-day rule-of-thumb, and RfCs may close in a few days or a few months depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, per WP:RFCEND, RfCs require a close no more than any discussion does. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I requested the presently active Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_A_statement_on_Trump_and_Covid-19_in_the_lead 12 days ago. Perhaps redundant with the previous extensive discussions, but I thought it worthwhile to have a specific, formal RfC on the consensus text, given the way the process seems to have been manipulated for delay. There has not been really any opposition to the proposal, other than the universal recommendation to drop my ill-advised "weasel" words, in what I thought would be a compromise to soften the language. The RfC consensus so far has been overwhelming, other than those comments that deviate from the process (mistakenly seeing the RfC as a reopening of the issue, not following directions, etc.). So overwhelming that it seemed to me we could close the RfC by mutual agreement, as is possible according to the rules (though there have been no takers for that avenue). Something is broken/being exploited by Wikipedia processes if it takes 5 months to devise a simple sentence for the lead. I've thought about bringing the issue here already, so I support this attention. There is WP:NOW: "...when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible." The text in question concerns Donald Trump and his response to pandemic...speaking of vital content. Across all the political articles, I believe this problem is likely universal just now - it is a political strategy to jam up the process. Some broader, objective strategy to prevent discussions such as this from going on endlessly (or until after the election...) is likely in order. Bdushaw (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good approximation of the consensus that was repeatedly removed and disparaged in obstinate obstructive edits by a small number of editors. The consensus was accurately reflected thanks to the work of @MrX, Neutrality, and Starship.paint: and others. It just needs to go back in the article with a warning to others to use the talk page to promote and gather consensus for any improved version. WP is not a beaurocracy. One of the obstructive editors has already been TBANned. If anyone takes on the task of compiling the evidence, we have other TBAN candidates as well. There has been consensus for something in the lead for several months. Insistent quibbling about the perfect language, with excessive numbers of proposals, alternatives, and bludgeons mostly ignoring cited RS references, serves only to enable a claim of "no consensus". That is the stuff of bans. If any Admin chooses to review the entire history of this discussion, we'd see several warnings at the very least. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No reason to close no-RFC discussion Unless the discussion has turned disruptive there is no reason to close, presumably with a summary, a non-RfC discussion. This can actually be problematic if the closing gives the appearance of an actual RfC that got wider community input vs a discussion among the article locals only. If the discussion is done let it auto archive. Springee (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason. Numerous editors have spent considerable time availing themselves of the dispute resolution process and you think they should be left hanging? This is exactly the type of bureaucratic thinking that contributes to battleground editing. It's truly unhelpful. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the discussion should be closed only (gray box, no further comments) or that an uninvolved editor should try to summarize the discussion as would be done with a RfC closing? If the former, why? If the latter then what authority does that discussion have beyond current, local consensus? What would stop someone from starting a RfC to discuss the same issue the day after this closing? As the discussion (presumably) didn't request wider input, as Dennis Brown mentioned, it would only represent a consensus of the current, local editors. A RfC, drawing in uninvolved editors would almost certainly superseded the local discussion and wouldn't be forum shopping. Again, what is to be gained by closing a local discussion that isn't a RfC? Springee (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But there is an RfC, as noted above, so this discussion just above seems academic. When I requested the RfC, I cast a wide net for comments, pinging BIO, SCI, and POL. There have been no serious additional comments for about 10 days now. Those that vigorously objected to the inclusion of the sentence in question when it was attempted to be added to the lead have not voiced those opinions in the RfC, that I can tell. Bdushaw (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been involved with an article level discussion that becomes locked. Someone starts a RfC and after that we get more participants. When the RfC gets more participation than the original discussion that's great. We know the RfC can be the definitive consensus (or non-consensus). I'm not sure how you should handle it if the RfC gets less activity than the previous discussion. If the RfC doesn't get much response then I guess the local participants will need to decide if a consensus has been reached and move from there. Either way, I don't think non-RfC discussions should ever be closed as if they were a RfC. Springee (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is unfortunate - it is just a symptom of the weirdness of editing patterns on this particular article, and one of the reasons for requesting a bit of intervention. Bdushaw (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, that is pretty much outside WP process. There are many ways to establish consensus on article content. In this case, there was disruptive abuse of the RfC format, evidenced by what in my experience was an unprecedented number of "Abort" !votes. A review and affirmation of the evident consensus, as reflected in MrX's edit that kept being reverted, was a reasonable way to move forward. The alternative would have been a lengthy AE tangle. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons why I often suggest trying to get agreement on the RfC question before the discussion starts. While editors don't agree on the content, it's often easier to get to an agreement on the question. I'm not sure which part you mean is outside of WP process. It's very common for a local consensus to be superseded by a RfC consensus. In most cases this is obvious as the RfC includes the original locals + outside editors. I don't recall the last time I saw one where the "local" discussion had editor participation than the RfC. I guess that would be a case where you could argue that the two discussions could be considered "merged" and try to establish consensus that way. Regardless, I don't think the local, non-RfC discussion should be closed vs just allowed to archive after a period of inactivity. Springee (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with the history of this particular issue on that page. The first RfC posted was a mess with 5 options, concocted seemingly at random by the poster. It was the opposite of good process or even constructive collaboration. OP refused to clean up the RfC. It kept the content at bay for a long time, only to be followed by more delays and distractions even after broad talk page participation crafted what's turned out to be highly stable article text. There should not need to be a close, but it's the least severe way of stopping the small number of editors who are edit-warring consensus content out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not following anything on a Trump article. It sounds like the RfC were bad which makes this a mottled mess. Springee (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes that is what happened. And to be blunt about it the RfC format was abused. And the substantive consensus was reaffirmed in a lenthy reexamination of the issues facilitated in part by @Awilley:, whose format we followed in verifying that the text was indeed consensus. It can still be placed in the lead at any time, and I'd be curious to see which editor is going to revert it this time. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I was suggesting that Wikipedia content disputes are not resolved by pedantry. I hope that's clear enough. - MrX 🖋 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it! Whose edit am I reverting? Lev!vich 18:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this for a while, and I think we've lost sight of a couple of points.

• There is clear consensus that something about covid should be in the lead. It's just unclear exactly what that something should be. There's still a partisan divide, as there always is on that page, but in this case the usual "swing voters" unanimously favor having something, and even a couple regulars who have opposed all of the proposed wordings concede that there should be something.
• Consensus is best achieved by a combination of editing and discussion. Wikipedia wasn't meant to be written by committee votes. One reason these discussions are so messy is that it requires a new vote every time someone has a new idea or incremental improvement to the proposed wording. Once people get past the point of wholesale reverting the sentence in and out of the article they can settle in and start tweaking the sentence to resolve objections until it stabilizes into something that's good enough. The talk page is there to aid that tweaking process, not replace it.

If I hadn't played a role in formatting the discussion in the "finding common ground" section I would quite comfortable closing the RFC finding a positive consensus for Q1 and suggesting that people continue working on hammering out wording nuances using the article and talk page. As it is I'd prefer someone else do it, but if nobody steps up I'm willing to take a stab at cutting through some of this bureaucratic gridlock. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

More edit battles today on this issue, as people have their patience worn thin waiting...another urgent plea to bring to a close the several open discussions on adding this sentence to the lead. "Help me Obiwan Kenobe! You are my only hope!" Bdushaw (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. [1] ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please delete the following revisions

Can the following edits [2], whose intermediate edits reference personal information, be deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but next time you should email oversight. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

New editors' complaint against experienced editors and Boomerang

The editor is not new and did not want this further discussed. Fences&Windows 00:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday an editor lodged a complaint at AN/I, and did not want to continue the discussion, and the discussion was archived. I won't talk anything about that complaint at all. However other than AN/I, it was also posted at Wikimedia-l. Some people, there, told that they feel if it is a complaint by a new editor against an established/long-term editor, there are more chance to Wikipedia:BOOMERANG (1, 2). This makes me feel sad. In my experienced, I have never felt so. I was thinking to write to the mailing list narrating my view that the speculation is incorrect. If you have any thought/suggestion, kindly share. --Titodutta (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Titodutta, the editor you call "new" has been editing since March, 2016 and has over 8000 edits. Therefore, the speculation is not based on facts. This editor has also raised this issue on Facebook group called "Wikipedia Weekly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

please help stop vandalism on Maratha_(caste) page

KobraPeshwa has been promoting the maratha caste all over wikipedia please see his edit history.[3]. User:Sitush has reverted his edits. He is obviously a sockpuppet. Now what he has done is put "dubious" in front of top quality sources on the Maratha_(caste) page and added external websites and pre-independence sources to promote his caste. He has tried to put Kshatriya in front of several maratha caste pages and on the maratha page he has put dubious infront of sources like cambridge university press etc..In short, anything that refers to the origin is marked as dubious. The page is a mess right now because it sources several preindependence sources and external websites. Please revert it to this version [4] when the protection template was removed. Thanking you in anticipation.LukeEmily (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To give examples he has put dubious infront of these sources that are scholarly and by historians: The Maratha caste is originally formed from the amalgamation of families from the peasant (Kunbi), shepherd (Dhangar), blacksmith (Lohar), Sutar (carpenter), Bhandari, Thakar and Koli castes in Maharashtra. Many of them took to military service in the 16th century such as the Deccan sultanates or the Mughals. Later in the 17th and 18th centuries, they served in the armies of the Maratha empire, founded by the Maratha king Shivaji. Some were granted fiefs by the rulers for their service. This group of families, after gaining political power, "dressed themselves up" with appropriate genealogies and coalesced into the caste called "Maratha" that did not even exist before then.

References
References References

I've left the user both a WP:GS/CASTE notice and actually notified them of this discussion (which you should have already done). Primefac (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I full protected the page for 3 days and reverted to the last stable version. The next step is blocks. @LukeEmily and KobraPeshwa: Banners like this and this are entirely inappropriate. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and definitely don't proclaim your interpersonal dispute to hundreds of readers through a banner. Absolutely ridiculous. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Content on Blind Faith (band) Page

Not the place for this discussion. And while WP:NOTCENSORED is one of the most abused policies there is, this is the sort of situation it's intended for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The album cover of Blind Faith’s eponymous debut album has a picture of a topless 11-year old girl. Yes, it was on the original album cover, but it’s PEDOPHILIA. There’s no reason for this heinous album picture to be reposted on this website. It needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.14.63 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe intervention

There has been an ongoing back-and-forth (increasingly impolite) about the Batman movie with Robert Pattinson (aka, the BatPat) being part of the DCEU. This was a discussion that has flared up a few times over the past two years bc of the vague definitions provided by directors and DC corporate marketing. After about 50 of these back and forth edits, I backed up the article to right before a lot of it got started, and told folk to use the talk page to sort out a consensus. Furthermore, I advised folk that if they continued edit-warring, I'd report them for it. I have no personal investment in the matter, save for it being in my watchlist. I have also requested RfPP to lock the page for a week, which should get people to use the talk page to hammer out a consensus edit. and initiated discussion on the talk page, to get people started.
I know that what I did was pretty heavy-handed. In the future, how could I handle that same sort of situation effectively? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: In response to your RFPP request, I semi-protected the article for 1 week. The article has a history of disruptive editing, in which mostly unregistered and new editors fight over controversial changes without attempting to seek consensus, and against that backdrop a 1-week semi-protection is on the more lenient end of things, but I think full protection here would have been a little premature. As far as how to handle the same sort of situation effectively in the future, warning the involved users about the edit warring policy, requesting page protection, and starting a talk page thread are good first steps. What probably wasn't a good idea was trying to encourage users to collaborate amicably while simultaneously calling them fanboi knuckleheads [5]. Mz7 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough @Mz7:. I guess I was annoyed that everyone was trying to use the edit summaries to explain why they were right and everyone else was wrong, and reverting all the while. I'll strike that disparaging remark. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page

BaldiBasicsFan has a section about users he hates which seems like a bad idea. I'm also suspicious that he is a sockpuppet of TheImmortalKitten but I don't have enough evidence to open an CU request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• That user page section also contained personal information in violation of Outing policy. It's now been removed and suppressed by Oversight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary removal

Imagine my surprise as I was going through my contribs only to find that one of them had an edit summary removed[6]. Imagine my confusion as I check the page logs and the only thing I can find are several removals with the text: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". To my knowledge I'd never write anything like that in an edit summary, of course it's not remotely possible for me to see what my edit summary was since archive.org has only got a single snapshot of the history after all those edit summaries were removed. It appears, that around that time there was a request for page protection due to some IP vandalism, but my change was a simple grammatical error 9 months ago. I notice several removals around the time of the complaint. If someone could be so kind and reply with my edit summary and then likely restore it, because I'm fairly certain there wasn't a thing wrong with it, that would be great. Thanks.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that; it was one of two edit summaries revdelled at once, and while the other one deleted in that action was completely correct I don't see what the issue is with your edit summary. @Darkwind: since you carried it out, is there some other context here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess, but he's had a single edit in the last 3 weeks, I don't know if we can expect a timely answer or not.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no hurry here, we'll straighten it out one way or another but this isn't something we need to rush on. Worth at least giving Darkwind a chance first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a bad deletion there, possibly in error - let's give Darkwind a chance to review first. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary of Special:Diff/920960994 is: "female is the right word here. Women isn't used in that manner" which doesn't strike me as RD2. Possibly a misclick. –xeno^talk 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Undone as the deleting admin appears to be away, this appears to be an error based on the discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon unblock 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.

---

John from Idegon has posted an unblock request. See User talk:John from Idegon#Unblock request — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Valuable contributor who had a misstep and is taking steps to correct. (cross post from user talk) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. We can all go through bad patches. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. The unblock request itself wasn't great, but the reply to Cullen seems genuine, and John will of course know what is likely to happen should such incidents reoccur. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. John is a big plus for the encyclopedia. He sometimes gets a bit testy. I pledge to do my best to mention this to him, when I observe it. Jacona (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm undecided abut block/unblock. Generally John is a positive to the project, and I'd like to see him remain and given another shot. But this is not a new problem - serious incivility issues from John go back years, as does a lack of recognition that it is a problem (which is again reflected in his unblock request). My biggest concern isn't that John doesn't mean well, or that he won't fully intend to address the problems, but simply whether or not he can recognise where the line is in order to change his behaviour. I expect this to end up with an unblock, and as such I really hope it works, but I'm concerned. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock - We all have bad days here, John's a much valued contributor here and IMHO should be unblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Confused Not sure why we're discussing this here. This block is a normal block imposed by a single administrator, not a ban, and I don't see a pressing need for community consensus to unblock. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The indef block happened as a result of a community discussion at AN, which seems to be taken these days as meaning a community ban - though I'm really not sure what counts as a ban and what doesn't these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, fair enough - since the thread was closed by Ivanvector's block rather than community consensus and the block log doesn't mention a community ban, I wouldn't consider that to be a CBAN. If people want to have the discussion, I'm not going to stop them, but this seems like excessive burro-cracy. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I too am confused. (whistles loudly) Heh! Ivanvector! We're over here! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused most of the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I blame COVID19. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Even pandemics have an upside. I'm often confused and now I have a great scapegoat.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• As we have a parallel discussion on his talk, should we close this and move these there? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 25 August 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.

Contested page 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.

---

A page was created at Sexual slavery in Islam. An edit war broke out and the page got move protected by me but by then it was at Concubinage in Islam. There has been a discussion but as yet no consensus has been forthcoming. They are going to seek wider discussion but where should the page be in the meantime. Should it remain as Concubinage in Islam or should the original title be returned to, similar to no consensus in an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article was created Sexual slavery in Islam but was moved to Concubinage in Islam on May 20. At the time 3 people (Vice regent, SharabSalam and an IP) supported the move and one (Mcphurphy) opposed it. Between May 21 and June 28, the article name remained stable at Concubinage in Islam and there was no discussion on the name during that time. A move war broke out on June 28 and CambridgeBayWeather move protected it on July 1.

In the latest round of discussion (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam#General_discussion) 6 users (AhmadF.Cheema, Mhhossein, HaEr48, Firman.Nst, Karaeng Matoaya) and an IP preferred the current title whereas 3 users (Grufo, Mcphurphy and Vishnu Sahib) opposed it. There is overwhelming evidence that "Concubinage" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources (see this section and this section and this comment). I don't see the users preferring the "Sexual slavery" title addressing this evidence.VR _talk 03:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, there is no reason for propaganda here, the discussion on this board is not about what you consider “overwhelming evidence” in favor of your disputed renaming of the page – there is an appropriate discussion in the Talk Page for that. This discussion is simply about whether the disputed renaming should remain as the official name of the page until the dispute is over. --Grufo (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At the time the article was renamed 3 people supported it and only one opposed it. Further opposition to the name change came more than a month later.VR _talk 13:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Most discussions begin with few editors involved. But since a renaming had been done without consensus and there was already an edit war, it should have been your duty (both sides) to try and involve as many other editors as possible in the discussion, possibly avoiding WP:CANVASS and using instead public boards for advertising the dispute. You keep talking here about how the page should be called or how the discussion is going according to you, but this discussion is not about solving the dispute, this discussion is about how the page should be named until the dispute is over. By the way, the editors who opposed the renaming are at least six plus one IP address as far as I could count, not three (#1 #2, #3, #4 #5, #6, #7) --Grufo (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here shows an overwhelming support for the name change to Sexual Slavery in Islam by several editors. There has been a blatant disregard of WP:Consensus by User:Vice regent who keeps citing one sided sources and and an out-dated poll for article merger which was conducted in a haste without much community involvement. Therefore, the best solution is to change the article's name to the original stable version until the forthcoming consensus. Mingling2 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the IP. Even Grufo does not claim there is an "overwhelming consensus" for the name change now. There was not much editor involvement back then as the page had been recently created [7]. The current title was even stable for around a month with the main disputer claiming they went on a break for a medical emergency. Plus, a poll back then can't really be outdated if were discussing the past. There was never any merger as far as I can tell. Finally, keep in mind that there were separate disputes back then which were however addressed together sometimes. I agree that this is not the place to discuss the "propaganda"/arguments here but this seems to be a concern with "The Wrong Version" being protected. 119.155.0.8 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

“Even Grufo does not claim there is an "overwhelming consensus" for the name change now”: I “claimed” (in the appropriate Talk Page, not here) that there is not enough consensus for allowing the disputed renaming (from the original title “Sexual slavery in Islam” to the current title “Concubinage in Islam”). There have never been any disputes against the original title “Sexual slavery in Islam”, only one user (Vice regent) left a message against it in the Talk Page and renamed the page to “Concubinage in Islam” 15 minutes later. From that moment the dispute about Vice regent's renaming began almost immediately. --Grufo (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@119.155.0.8 The current title has never been stable. The renaming was done quickly without much community consensus and it has been contested since than. And as Grufo pointed out 8 editors have opposed this move on the talk page including me. There remains no reason why the article name shouldn't be "Sexual slavery in Islam". Mingling2 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My second sentence was a response to Mingling2. The dispute about much in the article began almost immediately as soon as it was created without external input (just check the edit balance). The actual status quo would almost be a blank page. We've been active on the page for months while you joined just a few days ago. If we didn't focus particularly on the name-change, it was because we were having a three way discussion (four-way including Eperotron and subtracting socks) on multiple issues. I'd be wary about the drive-by editors like the obvious sock above (Mingling2 not Grufo, I'll apologize later if I'm wrong) claiming a consensus of 3/6/8/5000/maybe more in their favor, and 3/2/1/0/maybe less than that, against. As I said this is an issue of the "Wrong version(tm)" being protected... 119.155.0.8 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

“We've been active on the page for months while you joined just a few days ago”: It does not matter for how long you have been discussing using wrong arguments, they won't become right arguments automatically after a certain amount of months. P.S. Could you please pay more attention to the indentation of your messages? It is not clear who you are responding to. --Grufo (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather: I don't have time to find the policy page, but I believe the typical course in a move war is to place the page at the last stable title pending discussion. If no stable title exists then I think the page is typically placed at whatever title the page was created at. I'd also suggest telling participants to focus on where the article should be rather than wasting effort arguing about its temporary location which only prolongs the dispute. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:36, 25 August 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.

Please remove my user rights

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 there, could someone please remove all my user rights? I'm retiring. Thank you! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 05:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The creeper2007, This kind of request is typically denied. If you don't want to edit here, just don't. If you want to make it so that you can't, change your email address to something else, change your password to something that you won't remember, and then delete the email account. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If the person wants their user rights to be removed, but wants to keep the account open in case they decide to return, what's wrong with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The only user rights this person has is extended confirmed, which is a bit pointless in removing. If they had some more advanced perms I'd agree with you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• The creeper2007, if you want an administrator to disallow you from editing further on Wikipedia, then you can request a WP:SELFBLOCK for an enforced wiki-break of whatever length. Please click that link to learn how to do that and you will find a list of administrators willing to do that. If there are things that have made you unhappy about Wikipedia, you might also want to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for advice or feedback. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• I interpreted the request as concerning WP:RIGHTS and have removed "pending changes reviewer". I don't see a request for a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Although the literal request was removal of rights, it seems clear that the request was motivated by a comment on their talk page:

So, after being denied rollback twice and starting to get kicked from irc(was trying to request oversight) I am feeling like that the community is no longer appreciating my efforts on wikipedia and are considering me as a hassle to deal with.

• I'm not active in IRC, and not naïve enough to take any claim on face value, but if someone literally was kicked out of IRC for requesting oversight, something is wrong. Does anyone know more about this issue to know whether there is merit to the complaint? If so, some action may be warranted (understanding that IRC is sort of not really Wikipedia). The editor also presumably feels that the two rejections for rollback rights weren't warranted. I wasn't involved in either one of those requests. Is it worth checking to see if there is any merit to the concern? This community has a less than stellar record at dealing with relatively new editors, and those lessons to be learned, perhaps we should investigate, rather than simply saying goodbye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the first rejection for rollback and here is the second rejection for rollback. First one is clear and obvious that they were too new; second one involved admin discussion before declining. The IRC comment was first posted on their page on Aug. 5. only (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    Only, Thanks for those links. We've all seen situations where brand-new editors are chomping at the bit and anxious to contribute. It is always a delicate balancing act to encourage such editors to contribute positively, and give them the tools to help address problems without giving them tools prematurely. While we don't expect perfection, rollback is a powerful tool, in using it correctly 95% of the time is not close to good enough. I personally cringe whenever I use rollback in a copyright situation, knowing how dispiriting it must be to see hours of work demolished. For that reason, the community likes to make sure that it sees a solid track record before granting this right. The first request was clearly premature, in the second request was not denied cavalierly, it was the result of calm deliberation. While I understand the disappointment of an editor who feels that the denial was based upon a single incident, it looks to me like they were valid signs of concern, which could easily be addressed over time. I'm sorry that @The creeper2007: feels that the community is not appreciating their efforts, but I see specific thanks for all the hard work, and clear indications that more experience may well lead to granting of the right. I'd like to know more about the IRC incident, if the decision to leave was largely motivated by the failure to grant rollback, I'm confident that the community made the right decision to ask for more experience. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    I've pulled my IRC logs from the past couple of months and have reviewed two channels: #wikipedia-en (general open discussion channel) and #wikipedia-en-revdel (revdel/oversight request channel)

    • For #-en, there were several cases where they used the "!oversight" and "!admin" pings (which most admins will receive a notification for). I lost my temper with them on 14 July for using the !admin ping for an AIV request which had sat for five minutes without action. They displayed a strong fixation on getting rollback rights, I will note that I am INVOLVED here since I denied their request for rollback permissions. They were last in-channel on 5 August, and I do not see any kicks or bans applied to them.
    • For #-revdel, I see the_creeper2007 going in and out of the channel (by which I mean they join the channel and then their client disconnects) frequently over the course of several days in mid-July. I asked them on 13 July if they needed something, which never got a response, and they stopped idling in the channel on or around 14 July. That is the only interaction my logs show, and I do not see any cases of them speaking in the channel, much less requesting oversight. I also note for non-IRC-goers that non-admins are explicitly prohibited from idling in the #-revdel channel. Again, no kicks or bans. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

      GeneralNotability, Thanks for doing that research. My hope had been that a promising new editor had been treated unfairly, and addressing those issues might keep the editor engaged. That doesn't appear to be the case. I will leave this open for a few more minutes but I'm inclined to reclose. Not everyone is cut out for Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 25 August 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.

Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between Mathsci (talk · contribs), Gumshoe2 (talk · contribs), D.Lazard (talk · contribs), other mathematical editors and possibly myself. Broadly the dispute is about the Mathsci (talk · contribs) prolific contributions on a wide number of related mathematics articles. Other editors find that he has a tendency to add a lot of technical detail which might be better on other pages, or might not even be appropriate to the encyclopedia at all. Beyond the content dispute is a number of user conduct issues and rapidly diminishing AGF.

There was a previous ANI discussion [8]. I think I was the only administrator who contributed to the thread which generated more heat that light. It ran for 12 days before I closed it. But Gumshoe2 (talk · contribs) was unhappy with the close and has continued the dispute on my talk page at User talk:Salix_alba#Mathsci and has requested a more formal WP:DR process.

Rather than delving into the actual nature of the dispute I'm more interested in possible processes we could uses. I've looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and nothing seems really appropriate. Resolution is made tricky by few administrators knowing much about the rather high level maths articles and those admins who do understand the content having previous long histories with Mathsci. I believe Mathsci has contacted @Doug Weller: and intends to contact @Newyorkbrad: on the issue. --Salix alba (talk): 16:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I appreciate it. I would just like to clarify that my issue with Mathsci is (what I see as) his absolute inability to have productive discussion on the talk pages, which for various reasons makes editing itself extremely difficult. It is not so much about his actual edits themselves (as everyone makes bad edits sometimes). It seems that in previous discussions this has been summarized as Mathsci being prickly or standoffish, but I find that this is somewhat orthogonal to the real problem (for me). I believe mathsci is editing in good faith. I am just trying to clarify where I’m coming from. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Quite hard really. Same cast, different channel. Eerily this seems like a staged event: very possibly it is. Since 25 July 2020, I have carefully been editing content on symmetry of second derivatives. This article has had very few edits, less than 500. Charles Matthews was one of the main contributors in 2003. I added classic content about two proofs by Hörmander and Dieudonné, both famous mathematicians. I found the sources and wrote the content. I also found and summarised an account of the history of the problem (1740-1940). The content is anodyne and neutral. At some stage on User talk:D.Lazard, D.Lazard and Gumshoe2 started discussions on this article. First of all they claimed (and still claim) that plagiarism and copy-violations had occurred in the historical account, which was a standard summary-paraphrase. That kind of summary is something I've been doing since editing in 2006. D.Lazard did not template the page (which he should have done) but reverted the content twice. I emailed Doug Weller to ask about this, mentioning Moonriddengirl and Diannaa as experts on copyright issues. In the end, an hour or two after that I completely rewrote my summary-paraphrase, with no complaints. Now in the article, Gumshoe2 and D.Lazard have started radically rewritnig the mathematical content. They have not consulted me even when they know I have been editing very recently. Instead they have presented their changes as a fait-accompli. Even when I marked the section as "under construction", D.Lazard ignored it and has blindly reverted it. There were also issues with content (Fubini's theorem for continuous functions) that were ignored. Any of the sources were simply appropriated from the sources I had found. The pair of them gave no justification for their edits at all. The strategy of removing content created by me was discussed in advance by the pair of them on D.Lazard's user talk page: they seem to be operating as some kind of WP:TAGTEAM. In addition Gumshoe2's edit history indicates that he has been WP:FOLLOWING my edits. D.Lazard has had no particular interest in this area as far as I know. (Easy to check from his own whole editing history.) It is hard to know why Gumshoe2, with his brief editing history (~850 edits), has developed such an interest in me. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I encourage any readers to even briefly scan, for themselves, my five edits at Symmetry of second derivatives and my three messages on D.Lazard’s talk page. I believe they speak for themselves. My “following” of mathsci consists of edits of two wiki pages. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathsci, I haven't looked at the complete details of this dispute, and at the moment will only comment on one aspect. It is my observation that the under construction template was ubiquitous in the early years of Wikipedia, but much less common recently. One important reason for this change is the existence of the draft space — prior to that space existing the template could be used for a brand-new article not quite ready for prime time. The existence of draft space is made that usage unnecessary.

It is also my observation (although I concede that I might be sharing my personal preference) that when one needs to make a major change to an article, the best option is to make that sequence of changes in a user space draft, and when it is ready (and possibly reviewed by interested editors) then moved to main space. I haven't looked closely at how it was used in Symmetry of second derivatives, but in general, I'm not sympathetic to complaints that this template was ignored or reverted. Major changes should, in general be discussed on talk pages before being implemented, and article should never be in a state that makes them unintelligible. there is almost never a need for such a situation. The use of such a template does not constitute an exception to the need to discuss on talk pages major changes to articles.

I know this template has survived a proposal for removal, but that proposal occurred prior to the existence of draft space, and I wouldn't be surprised if such a proposal produced a different result this time. No, I'm not ready to undertake such a proposal — just trying to emphasize that this template ought to be used extremely rarely if ever. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) On Bach-related articles the templates are used fairly often. Anyway, the kind of WP:TAGTEAMING that's been happening is not good. True, it's not uncommon in controversial areas, with civil POV pushing, etc. But today, after just under one month of editing, I produced careful content. The two other editors then decided to form part of a tag team, as documented on User talk:D.Lazard. Possibly because of some shared grievance, they decided that all the edits I had made last month would be removed. The removals today started with Gumshoe2 [9] and then D.Lazard. [10][11][12] It is exactly what they planned; D.Lazard even mentioned gaming the system with WP:ANEW. D.Lazard's three large removals seem to be part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. He has no expertise in the area of analysis/functional analysis (the Treatise of Analysis of Jean Dieudonné), although from my perspective the topic is relatively elementary. The pair Gumshoe2-D.Lazard have succeeded in creating a lot of instability in the article. D.Lazard was notified about these matters on AN, but so far has ignored them. Or has he just appeared now with a long speech .... Salix alba has already mentioned WP:FOLLOW: Gumshoe2's concentration on my edits is disquieting. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify for non-mathematical observers (I will avoid subjective comments): on the page Symmetry of second derivatives, there have been two edit disputes: one is a history section which takes essentially no domain expertise whatever to contribute to; the other is a mathematical section, where according to myself and D.Lazard, Mathsci has inappropriately inserted graduate-level functional analysis material from Dieudonne's book, when all that is actually needed (according to us) is barely above the level of multivariable calculus courses - with which D.Lazard (and any professional mathematician whatsoever) is familiar. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In my opinion the problem is not in the mathematical content of the disputed articles but the special conception that Mathsci has of the collaborative editing process of Wikipedia, and of the way of conducting discussions on the talk pages. If I well understand Mathsci's previous post, he considers that, for editing an article in which he is interested, one must have worked on the article before, and have a large history of Wikipedia editing. When a discussion is open on the talk page, he never discuss the point, but discuss users conduct, summarizes his preferred sources and repeat again and again that everything that he writes is carefully sourced. A typical example is Talk:Symmetry_of_second_derivatives#Fubini's theorem. Even a non-mathematician can understand that the question is about the scope of the article and not about the correctness of the mathematical content, and that Mathsci never adressed the opening question.

I could comment further Mathsci behavior, but everybody can see that despite his good faith, his behavior is highly disruptive, as making very difficult any improvement of the articles that he has edited. It seems that the disruption is not enough for an indefinite block, and it seems probable that a short block would not help. I suggests the following: to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article. If he want to edit or revert an mathematical article, he must set an edit request, possibly prepared in a subpage of his talk page. Clearly, his edit requests could not be denied by me or Gumshoe2. If they should be denied, thus must be done by another established member of the Wikiproject mathematics. Such a specific ban would allow Wikipedia to benefit of his competence with few disruption (there is no need to reply to walls of comments on the talk pages, so these comments are much less disruptive than edit wars on the articles). D.Lazard (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

D.Lazard wants [sic] to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article. Quelle horreur ! Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meta-comment One well accepted paradigm is that content disputes belong on talk pages, while AN and ANI are the location to address behavioral disputes. This distinction sometimes gets blurred in certain subject areas, where passionate adherence to a viewpoint may believe they are engaging in good faith arguments but the heat may exceed the light. This can be exacerbated when the subject matter is not easily followed by a substantial proportion of editors. It is somewhat easier to understand why a highly charged political discussion leads to passionate wording as compared to a dispute over second derivatives, and there does thankfully seem to be an absence of name-calling, but it is not easy to sort out whether content disputes have crossed into behavioral issues in some cases. I see problematic behavior from multiple participants. I see contention about whether certain passages are violation of copyright policy, and my very limited review suggests that the answer isn't clear cut. I see reasonable questions being asked which are not answered. Seen editor wondering why another editor is interested in them even though it is perfectly understandable why someone with an interest in the subject would be following and contributing to talk page discussions. I see a suggestion that it's improper to privately contact an administrator. While my preference is to do things out in the open as much as possible, there are lots of situations where a private word with an administrator might be a sensible step. I see a question about why a proof of Fubini's theorem appears on an article about a different subject rather than on the article about Fubini's theorem, and I see a plausible response that Fubini's theorem may be equivalent to the assertions in the article. This is a perfect example of a dispute which is not easy for the non-mathematically inclined to tease out which party is being reasonable and which party is being unreasonable. I urge all parties to take a deep breath, attempt to engage in talk page discussions which might mean answering things you think are perfectly obvious, and we will sort this out. I see more than one party to this dispute who has made enormous contributions to this project, so I want to make sure that all continue to be contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Your comment is completely reasonable. Mild-mannered intellectual discussion is what's needed. (BTW I think you are correct that Fubini's theorem for continuous functions is equivalent to the symmetry of mixed derivatives, cf Richard Beals' 1973 "Advanced Mathematical Analysis," pages 62-67.) Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem to be addressed in Beals' book. An equivalence of Fubini's theorem for continuous functions and symmetry of second derivatives, in the case of continuous mixed derivatives, is explicitly the point of the Aksoy and Martelli article. I wasn't aware of this; it makes what I said below about the topic, suggesting that there shouldn't be an equivalence, effectively wrong. This is certainly something that could be mentioned in the article. I would like to note that when I asked for a reference on the talk page (a question which, as we see now, has a strikingly simple and direct answer), mathsci gave a response which completely avoided that question or anything else raised in my message. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Beals' treatment is quite idiosyncratic. His purpose was not to write a chapter on the history of mathematics. I provided the citations, not Gumshie2, so why is he pretending otherwise? The editing history of the article is clear enough. There are at least two other historical articles on the same topic on the several arXiv articles, but these are not probably intended for a general readership. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Two comments- I did not mean to imply that it is improper to privately contact an admin. I was only requesting that he would do so publicly. On Fubini’s theorem- the question was not answered since the answer appears to be complete nonsense. This is characteristic to many nominal answers Mathsci would give on the differential geometry of surfaces talk page, as I have detailed in earlier threads, such as the ANI thread. (I say the answer is nonsense because Fubinis theorem is vastly more general than the result in question, but because of the proof technique, the specific form of the result in question which Fubinis theorem gives is not even the optimal one; it requires continuity in a whole neighborhood. So a special case of Fubinis theorem just gives a particularly clear proof of a special case of the result in question. This doesn’t suggest anything close to an equivalence of results.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My question. I understand it is difficult for many to judge some disputes which are related with advanced mathematics. Perhaps an administrator can clarify the following, slightly more abstract, question, which I posed to salix alba on his talk page, and which he posed a slightly broader form of to open this thread. I am posing it explicitly here, as I think salix alba's formulation mischaracterized the situation in an important way. If there is a more appropriate place for me to ask this question, please let me know.

Suppose you are an editor, who sees a technical page in your area of expertise which you think requires some major improvements, in part due to inaccuracies and in part for a lack of clarity. You start to make changes, but many are reverted by another editor who says things like "too many changes" or "go slower". You try to sort out some technical matters on the talk page, but the other editor fails to respond to the issues, giving answers like "read this book, then you will understand," in the process mistranslating from the book onto the wiki. He will not respond to direct questions, instead saying things like "I don't know why you're having problems with this book, it is a standard reference," never even attempting to address the claim that he has misunderstood the contents of the book. Later, he will be unable to explain material which he personally added to the page, during which, at various points, he refuses to check the reference you provide for it (just observing that the chapter title seems to be unrelated), to incorrectly insisting that another part of the same book is the proper reference (not even trying to address your own explanation that he is confusing two completely different angles with each other), to then saying that the material is actually incorrect and must be removed (because he has still ignored the reference you provided for it), to then finally verifying it to his own satisfaction; in the end he does not even reply to the original question of why the material should be included on the page.

All the while, you post on the relevant wikiproject to try to get more commentators so as to establish a consensus, but nobody new comes to comment. You describe it on a pre-existing ANI thread, but the only administrator to comment says that the math is too difficult to understand. The ANI thread is closed with the other editor vowing to "avoid personal comments" and to "behave well". This does not have an effect on the talk page behavior of the other editor.

Is there anything you can do about this? The answer of "just edit different pages" would be a real pity as the topic of the page is very close to your heart, and the page itself is still in bad shape. The above answer of "attempt to engage in talk page discussions which might mean answering things you think are perfectly obvious" is not very satisfying, as you believe this is precisely what you have been doing all along.

(to anyone trying to map this to the case at hand, I am describing events on the talk page at differential geometry of surfaces. Despite the partial details, I am not trying to re-litigate them, I am just trying to understand what someone in my position, who sees the situation as I do, ought to do) Gumshoe2 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• The current disruption by the pair Gumshoe2-D.Lazard appears to have two aspects.

(1) Since August, Gumshoe2 has been WP:FOLLOWING my edits, aka "hounding" or "wikihouding". On User talk:D.Lazard, for whatever reason, Gumshoe2 appears to have nursed some kind of grudge, so far not properly articulated. Some hunch that I am "incapable of editing mathematics", a form of idée fixe. On Salix alba's talk page, on Doug Weller's talk page, on article talk pages, on WikiProject Mathematics, on ANI and now here, Gumshoe2 has persisted in his desire to "prove" this. But his current editing history in mainspace shows that Gumshhoe2 has out of the blue started editing disruptively and in bad faith on this elementary article; and that he planned to do so as a WP:TAGTEAM.

(2) D.Lazard does not have a clean track record on WP (warned by administrators for editing own wikipedia page). On this page D.Lazard has made unguarded edits, with exaggerated rhetoric. My editing history does not support D.Lazard' assertions about my mathematical editing, 2006-2020. D.Lazards's suggestion to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article seems to be crankiness. Looking at his editing yesterday to the article and on its article talk page, it is appears that D.Lazard's blindly edit-warred with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on the article; and at no stage did D.Lazard make any edits to the article talk page to explain himself.

The article is meanwhile in an unstable state. I prepared sourced self-contained content on Fubini's theorem that is rigorous. Wikilinks to Fubini's theorem are inadequate because the wikipedia pages are all about measure theory. For this article, what is needed is an elementary version of Fubini's theorem, using the Dieudonné-Bourbaki framework of integration theory on compact spaces. I gave such a presentation, which could be shortened, simplified and summarised with appropriate citations. Leaving loose ends dangling, however, where readers might needlessly worry about sigma algebras, is not the way to write. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Some other editor should probably weight in; so here is). I cannot say I have closely followed the dispute. But, on the surface level (it's a pun...), this looks exactly like many other content disputes. One party adds some materials to an article; the other party removes or modifies it because, for instance, they are inappropriate for some reason. Like many others, I did find some calculus materials added by Mathsci to differential geometry of surfaces to be out of place and so I have just moved it to Draft:Calculus on Euclidean space (for now). A behavior issue arises *only when* a user keep insisting putting their materials against the community consensus. That's not the case here, I think. I did have noticed some strange communication failure; e.g., an interaction between Jakob.scholbach and Mathsci at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Expert_attention_on_Differential_Geometry_of_Surfaces. Perhaps this has contributed to the difficulty resolving a dispute. In any case, in Wikipedia, it is not always possible to resolve a content dispute by a discussion. Editors would have different opinions what is appropriate and what is not and, after some discussion, in the end, we need to resort to a majority rule. Any form of sanction against a user is needed only when the user cannot accept such a majority rule. -- Taku (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify again that my accusation against Mathsci is of disruptive editing on the talk page. I tried to summarize the two most major instances of this in "My question" above. The edits on the pages themselves are only tangentially related - sure, I think some of them are bad, but that doesn't seem terribly significant. (At the least, I have also made some bad wiki edits.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The question I have for OP and others who share their concerns is: what's the remedy? Someone might want to make a formal proposal at this stage. Lev!vich 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone new to wikipedia and its formalities, I do not have a suggestion. To whoever makes a suggestion, please consider (as one small example) mathsci's above assertion "The pair of them [D.Lazard and Gumshoe2] gave no justification for their edits at all." It is easy to check whether or not this has any merit by taking a quick look at the article's history page (I have 5 edits there; D.Lazard has 6). This is just a particularly simple and direct example of how mathsci's discussions on the talk pages are totally unmoored from context. I'm pointing it out only because it is characteristic and, unlike the more significant examples, doesn't require any mathematical knowledge whatsoever in order to judge. And I would like to emphasize again, as it seems to often be missed, that my stated issue is with such talk page behavior and not with something like "inflexibility in content disputes". I hope this is taken into account. Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that other users have had similar issues with Mathsci, which I was not fully aware of until now. In this 2018 AN thread, there are a number of comments which strongly resonate with what I am saying here. For instance one user says "You waffle, obfuscate [...] try to divert from clear statements, avoid the point, write tldr walls of barely relevant (or even coherent) text, in fact do anything you can to weasel around your obstructive and deliberately frustrating attitude. [...] It's a familiar patten. Mathsci gets into conflict [...] blames everyone else [...] And ends up moving to a different topic when enough people have been pissed off only for the cycle to start again." Due to lack of familiarity, I can't say offhand if this was justified by the context there, but perhaps that thread and the links it contains (the user who posted the above comment links to another page, from 2016, which they say "clearly shows [Mathsci's] tactics when brought to a noticeboard") would be relevant for admins in understanding the present situation. Perhaps it is also notable in that it forms Mathsci's most recent wiki contribution until he started writing again two months ago. Behavior of a roughly similar nature seems to have been consistently ascribed to Mathsci by various users for at least ten years. I understand also that perhaps none of this old material is relevant; I don't know what admins like to use in deciding these things. Gumshoe2 (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The article which precipitated this report was symmetry of second derivatives, an insignificant and elementary article. The History section was recently rewritten by me (see above). It was claimed that it involved plagiarism and/or copyvios. That turned out to be a red herring. Doug Weller gave me some guidance on these matters. Slightly later there were problems concerning "Fubini's theorem", also involving the symmetry article (see above). The sloppy use of the term "Fubini's theorem" shows there was no serious relation between "Fubinis's theorem" (a topic in measure theory or probability theory) and the symmetry article. Instead the closest term on WP was iterated integrals, covered in first year undergraduate courses. A relevant WP:RS is Titchmarsh's 1932 "Theory of Functions," now added by me to the article. Modification of content has meanwhile resumed in the normal way with small incremental changes. Mathsci (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I encourage any interested observer, especially admins, to look into the actual situation here for themselves. This is a completely absurd way to describe it, with essentially no relation to reality. Mathsci's present comment "insignificant and elementary article" is in direct contrast with his earlier insistence on using graduate-level functional analysis (Dieudonne and Bourbaki) at length in the same article. Doug Weller's entire public comment, on his talk page, was "I told Mathsci that I think that User:Diannaa or User:Moonriddengirl know a lot more about this than I do. Let's wait to see if one of them comments here. Thanks." Mathsci's present comment on Fubini's theorem ("no serious relation") is remarkably strange, I simply cannot see any way of making sense out of it. It bears no relation to the discussion on the article's talk page. Altogether this type of talk page behavior is unreasonably erratic. It is consistent and extremely time-consuming to deal with. Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, many times, and the common denominator is Mathsci and ownership of articles. Accusing others of wiki stalking without real evidence is disruptive. Trying to namedrop arbitrators to insinuate other editors will be sanctioned is disruptive. Placing cleanup tags on sections because you don't like that it's not your version is disruptive. From the unblock statement back in 2016: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.[13] That promise has not been fulfilled. My recommendation is that if this behavior continues and AN is unable to do anything to adjust the behavior, a request for arbitration be filed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there is over a ten year history of mathsci affirming to behave better, with admins saying that he should have one more chance, which seems to have usually made an effect for about a week. But I think I should clarify again that, a few comments aside, this issue is for me (D.Lazard is somewhat different) not in a direct way about personal comments or belittlement. Mathsci's talk page behavior and commentary is simply far too erratic; it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. Given the technicality of some of the material, I would be happy to go line by line through some of the talk page sections with an admin or arbitrator to carefully explain his evasions and misrepresentations. I would also be happy to file an arbitration request whenever is appropriate. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My contribution history shows no evidence of "weekly disputes" or "erratic behavior". Gumshoe2 writes, it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. However, in real life I have been a lecturer at the Universities of Liverpool and Cambridge; and I have also been an invited speaker at an International Congress of Mathematicians.

My edits on wikipedia started in July 2006 with mathematics, matters French and music. In 2010 I became involved in WP:ARBR&I, involving a controversial area. By mutual consent I voluntarily ceased editing in that area. In 2016, I stopped editing the article 2016 Nice truck attack, another controversial area, where I agree that belittling offensive remarks had been made about French translations and culture. In 2018, following a stroke at the end of December 2017, disputes arose as a result of Bach editing (e.g. Harpsichord Concerto in E major, BWV 1053 and BWV 1052). These were discussed on Newyorkbrad's user talk page with user:Softlavender and User:MastCell. Although at that stage I had stopped editing for health reasons, on 20 June 2018 a 2-way WP:IBAN was imposed. In the summer of 2018 my post-stroke health deteriorated further and I was hospitalized for 3 months. I have gradually recovered and returned to editing in June 2020. I was privately welcomed back on wiki email by one administrator. I also briefly communicated with Doug Weller on this talk page and by email. The email summarised comments already made about Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. Otherwise it concerned private matters. Recent mathematical edits from August 2020 concern elementary issues, a kind of "remedial calculus": the references date back to Princeton in 1909, Cambridge in 1907 and Oxford in 1932. The 1932 reference also is the usual way of handling the Fourier transform on Schwartz space I have looked back at edits on hermitian symmetric spaces which involved the use of algebra to understand complex geometry. This resulted in a series of articles on Jordan algebras from 2013: Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), quadratic Jordan algebra, mutation (Jordan algebra), etc. Bishonen's advice on avoiding "belittling remarks" has been taken on board, as reaffirmed recently on ANI. I am not sure why D.Lazard is suggesting that I must be banned from editing all matters involving mathematics. Neither he nor Gumshoe2 have given arguments based on my content contributions. Meanwhile the health problems have unfortunately not been resolved.

Please reread how Gumshoe2 writes, it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. If Gumshoe2 is writing like this, is there any basis at all for an eponymous arbcom case centred on me. After 850 edits, it's not clear why Gumshoe2 would be suggesting an arbcom case; certsinly it would be hard for me to take part in my current state of health. I apart from ARBR&I, I have participated in JzG & Abd, domcram, Nolander and Child of Midnight. Oh and PHG, all about Cyprus. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that you were an internationally recognized mathematician in the 1980s and 90s. I don't believe this has any bearing on the present situation whatsoever. I believe it is worth noting that you have left off some of your fractious wiki history, such as your ban from 2013 to 2016 for posting personal information about another editor, in addition to even earlier problems. Anyway, I was not trying to insult you with my phrase; I was trying to communicate the nature of your responses, how a message like "You are confusing object x with object y" might be responded to with some totally separate thing like "There is an eclectic proof of Theorem A in the classical 1953 textbook of Serre; the material itself is standard. I recall reading it in 2007." I am trying to ensure that this is communicated to outside observers, since it is here usually clouded by technical language; it seems that some observers think I am just disagreeing with your responses, when in reality I think that many of your responses are not genuinely responses at all. It is the same behavior remarked upon in 2016 and 2018 by other editors in the previous AN threads I linked to above. Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Phrases like "loquacious AI trained" are surprising. In the case of WP:ARBR&I, an unban request was made 2 1/2 years later, so there's not much to discuss. This must be a parody: There is an eclectic proof of Theorem A in the classical 1953 textbook of Serre; the material itself is standard. I recall reading it in 2007. Not really how I write. Gumshoe2 also writes, I am trying to ensure that this is communicated to outside observers, since it is here usually clouded by technical language and in reality I think that many of your responses are not genuinely responses at all. It is the same behavior remarked upon in 2016 and 2018 by other editors Gumshoe2 has written that he wishes to be a party in an arbcom case. His editing on WP occurred in April-August 2020, but he has mentioned 2018 and 2016. So far my contribution in mathematics edits, covering 2006-2020, have not been systematically analysed with diffs. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Page History Merge Request: Page was moved, then redirected page was copy/pasted back to old page, so no history exists

Genesis Rabbah was moved to Genesis Rabba and then the redirect was "moved" back, but it appears to have been moved via copy/paste so page edit history seems to be gone. Is there a way to get it back via a merge? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'm on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, the only change since the copy/paste move was to add "h" to "Rabba" in the opening sentence. So, I have deleted the new copy/paste Genesis Rabbah, reverted the old Genesis Rabba to being a full article, added the "h", and then moved it the proper way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Range block

Please could an admin knowledgeable about range blocks consider blocking the dynamic IP who is vandalising Jim Ladd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the IPs have only disrupted that article, a protection seems easier. I've semi-protected for six months, escalating from previous protections. Seems to be a vandalism magnet, that article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

More than just that article. The edits going back to the start of August, anyway, appear to be the same person.

The range block calculator, as linked from the header of Special:Block, is handy for this sort of request. In this particular case, so is WP:/64. —Cryptic 12:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My inclination would be to use a range block for as long as is consistent with policy (3 months?), because this user has disrupted dozens of articles over the last twelve months, and I feel blocking the vandal is better than protecting an article when others have not been vandalising it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well we can do that as well, but in the specific case of Jim Ladd, I can't find a good faith edit from an IP that wasn't reverted for the last two years, so that deserves special attention. And, are we looking at the same set of contributions? The problem with the range suggested by Cryptic is that there doesn't seem to be enough bad faith edits and too much collateral - for example, this looks like a good faith edit, as does this one. There's been no further vandalism on Curtis Mayfield for two days, so I think protection / blocking on that alone is stale. In summarise, I don't think a range block is required right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT, there haven't been many changes besides reverting the vandalism for the last 2 years period, and if I counted right, the article has been semi-protected for 9 months out of the last 2 years. And while I can't see those changes, it looks likely to me they are all from the same editor. So if there was a good chance that a range block would end the disruption and cause no collateral it's IMO the correct course of action as semi-protect also risks collateral. However since I see at least one IPv4 address there and given your description, this may not be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't often disagree with Ritchie333, but here I'm seeing six incidents of vandalism on three articles from four IPs over a month, which is enough that I'm willing to soft-block the range for a month, so I've done so. I also note that MaterialScientist blocked an overlapping range for two weeks in March. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding North8000

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North8000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding North8000

Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing 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.

---

At Steve Bannon there is an active discussion about including the recent indictment in the lead. The discussion is ongoing and has not been closed yet with consensus for inclusion or exclusion. However, editors have been adding the material to the page citing "consensus" before the discussion has been closed. Is it ok to claim consensus in an ongoing discussion? Must editors wait for a formal closure? I would appreciate some guidance here, as this will likely be contentious until a formal consensus / close is reached, with the usual associated edit warring. Thank you in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I already pointed out WP:ONUS does NOT mean "I get to set up a standard so ridiculous that no one can meet it so I get to do whatever I want". This isn't a question of WP:ONUS. That's been met. This is an issue of a couple editors stone walling and obfuscating and wikilawyering in defense of their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, ONUS is a policy. But so is WP:PRESERVE. Repeated deletion of material that meets core policies (V, RS, NPOV) is hardly defensible editing practice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but I'm also seeking input on whether an involved editor can claim "consensus" and include material before a discussion has been resolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is material in the lead, not the body. V, RS are both satisfied. NPOV with respect to the body is generally not in dispute, only if the content should be in the lead. Springee (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm semi-by-proxy involved due to the related convo on BLP/N but I will note that ONUS does say that given this is new info being added to the article, and it is a BLP, it should stay out of the lede (where its disputed, not in the body obviously) until the consensus is resolved by someone uninvolved. That is, it is the ONUS of those wishing to add new info that is has consensus to be kept in the lede. (I agree personally it should be in the lede, but by process, it should not be added yet). --Masem (t) 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also involved. My feeling is this discussion would be much easier if when the material was originally challenged and removed we had gone to the talk page to discuss if/how it should be included and didn't edit war to include. I'm part of the unwashed masses as I was the first to challenge inclusion and have removed it from the lead two additional times. At this point some level of intervention would be helpful since the disputed material has been added/removed by at least 10 editors. Once the material was removed the first time we should have followed BRD. Even if we didn't agree it would have resulted in a less contentious discussion. We might still be where we are now, in an area where some say consensus has been established while others disagree and both sides adding/removing. Springee (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to think that one person objecting to something that several other editors support is reason for keeping material out of articles. That is not consistent with editing norms on Wikipedia. Consensus was firmly against removing the content when you first objected on the talk page, then you took it to another forum. Even then, editors were substantially in favor of retaining the material, especially after discounting non-policy arguments and factoring in comments from editors who wanted to see more content in the body of the article first. - MrX 🖋 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To be frank, this is "new" material, it is nowhere close to "long-standing" material that is being challenged to be removed (but that would be also a case under ONUS too if it were long-standing material and one was seeking its removal under dispute). The default position, as soon as there was a reasonable challenge, was to remove it for the time being and per ONUS wait for consensus to add it back in. It is some bludgeoning to say "oh, there's all this consensus to have it in, and now your complaints to remove are the ONUS.", not with as little time as there has been for this information's inclusion. (And again, I'm saying this from the fact I'd support this information being the lede, but rather see it added with a proper consensus behind it, not forced into place like this.)--Masem (t) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, as you know, there were several substantive errors in your chart. And you made no mention of "discounting non-policy arguments" until now. Which arguments are you referring to exactly? petrarchan47คุก 22:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

After you Petrarchan47. Where are the "several substantive errors" in my chart (table)? I want to make sure I correct those straight away. - MrX 🖋 23:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would you not jump at the opportunity to share your findings? I know that you would not make a false claim at a noticeboard because such a thing destroys an editor's credibility, so please share your work. As for your mistakes, I'll remind you again that you summarized my "too soon for the lede" as 'unclear' by ignoring BPLN. Others have taken issue with your assessment, but you don't need to make corrections as they're being made for you. This requirement that I should answer your question before you'll reply to mine seems disingenuous, to be honest, since you are presumably reading the talk page where all of this is laid out clearly. petrarchan47คุก 01:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So there were not "several substantive errors", there was one classification that you disagreed with, even though you wrote "Too soon for the Lede, though it will likely be added in time." - MrX 🖋 18:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I can't imagine why. Former campaign managers are indicted for crimes all the time. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The procedural arguments from the blocking editors are obviously just a tactic. Take a look at who the editors are who are objecting to the inclusion in the lede, and you'll see that their political PoV is the driving force here, not Wiki policy. That we're not supposed to acknowledge that reality for some reason is extremely bizarre to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Takes one to know one? PackMecEng (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The "blocking" argument to omit it from the lede is 100% fair based on BLP policy. The fact is appropriately covered in the body, and it is a very valid question about if it is lede worthy, as we normally don't push other types of initial arrests/indictments to the lede and instead wait for actual convictions. Bad faith to be calling this a political push. --Masem (t) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure, Masem, sure, whatever you say -- but you do know that everyone can see what the Emperor is wearing, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I am aware that in the talk page discussion, in the handy table there, there are some editors listed in the "opposed to lede" that are regularly associated with a viewpoint that would be seen as in alignment with Bannen here (which is not actionable on its own). But I think this overall is an example of the longstanding problem I've talked too far at length on that we have too many editors on the other viewpoint side that just want to make articles about BLP with extreme right-leaning ideologies that are often criticized by the press as laundry lists of every little wrong thing that happens to them that we can document to mainstream RSes, which is not neutral nor impartial either. It's just that in this specific case w/ Bannen's indictment on federal fraud, I have to personally agree this is far different than yet another label-strewn attack piece from the media, but that's my opinion. Instead, there's was a dispute about including it in the lede, it is a proper BLP dispute for new material, and so there should be a proper closure. Then if challenged later, you can point to that discussion and restore it without question. That's why having those types of discussions helps, you document where these things are decided so that editors (new and old) don't come back around months later to try to remove or the like. --Masem (t) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not involved but I agree with Masem, both in that I personally think it's lead-worthy and that I think we have a process for this sort of situation that should be followed. The first time it was reverted, it should have stayed out until there was consensus for its inclusion. It shouldn't be reinstated while an RFC or talk page discussion is ongoing; wait for it to be closed. It's disappointing to see so many experienced editors ignoring WP:V (specifically WP:ONUS) and engaging in a battleground approach, including in this thread. Lev!vich 23:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way this is also happening over at Aziz Ansari. Would some uninvolved admins be able to help out and provide more direct assistance or guidance? Additionally, I reject the assertions above that you don't need to follow ONUS if the material is contrary to your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I would have hoped this discussion made it clear that we need to have consensus for inclusion first. The talk page doesn't agree there is consensus and you as an involved editor shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide it has been reached. If you feel it has and feel those who disagree are stonewalling then get an independent review. For example, you can start a RfC and that can establish the consensus upon it's closing. Stop adding the content just because you think others are wrong. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem and Levivich that this is leadworthy content and that people who want to add it to the lead should be patient. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion about this inclusion has been beaten into the ground on the article talk page. After almost a week of edit warring over whether to include a short mention in the lead of the article of Steve Bannon's legal woes, there is a clear consensus that a short mention in the lead is adequately supported by the majority of editors. Almost all the editors involved in the discussion agree with this except for User:Springee. Can an uninvolved administrator from this board review the discussion and close it? At this point, it has turned into a time wasting exercise with what should have been a straightforward WP:BRD discussion which has spilled over into several article noticeboards. Any assistance would be appreciated. Also, Springee keeps reverting the same edits over and over and at this point they are way beyond the 1RR restriction (as well as 3RR). Thanks for any help. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Octoberwoodland: please consider the above discussion and self revert. As an involved editor you should not self declare consensus. Springee (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD and stop making up your own rules as you go. I have asked for closure, so hopefully this stonewalling exercise will get fixed. We are at this impasse because you refuse to follow the rules. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you should follow BRD as well as NOCON. I reverted the content when it was first added. Thus we are past B and R. The content should have never been restored until D reached a consensus. The talk page has not agreed that a consensus has been reached despite many voices on both sides. The content was boldly added to the lead. It was reverted. Per the discussion above it should have never been added back until a consensus was established. Currently the involved parties don't agree on consensus so the correct thing for you to get the material in the article is have an involved party decide the issue. For example a RfC closed by an involved editor. If you are going to come here and accuse me of failing to follow procedures, consider that you have restored this material more than once against NOCON. Perhaps it's time to self revert then see if a compromise text could be acceptable via a talk page discussion instead of edit warring. Striking based on OWL's self revert.Springee (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not an excuse for you to violate 1RR/3RR on the article. If another editor comes along and adds content, it's not your place to keep reverting over and over in order to enshrine your views in the article. All of us, me included need to constantly work on improving our social skills. Discuss your concerns and if you are overruled by other editors, graciously accept it and move on. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is from the top those who have restored the edit are the ones who have failed edicate and policy. When the edit was challenged the first thing that should have happened is those who want inclusion should have started a talk page discussion (see ONUS). Without the edit warring I'm sure both sides would find it easier to talk things out and hopefully find a compromise text that could get consensus. The problem now is we have a lot of voices on both sides and we can't agree even if we have a consensus. If we can't agree then neither side should self declare a consensus has or has not been reached. In a case where we can't agree a consensus has been reached we have procedures for establishing if a consensus exists. One option would be a RfC. Another would be trying to find a compromise text. By measure of head count I would agree that we are on the consensus/no-consensus line. My honest opinion is this is as much an editorial judgement as anything. I were uninvolved I would look at the opinions of the editors who aren't "the usual suspects" and see if they favor inclusion by a sufficient margin to say consensus is established. However, as an involved editor that call is not mine to make. Springee (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No. The problem is that you first falsely invoked WP:BLPCRIME despite the fact that you knew it didn't say what you were claiming it said (you knew this, because you tried to employ exactly the same tactic previously and were warned about it). When that didn't work out you claimed it shouldn't be in the lede because there wasn't enough content in the body. But when editors tried to expand the relevant section you got busy trying to remove or justify the removal of that expansion. When you got called out on that you then started screaming "NO CONSENSUS!" as a justification for your reverts. That's not actually a justification. It's an excuse. A bad excuse. When obvious consensus against you developed, you began yelling "ONUS!" and inventing ridiculously absurd thresholds for inclusion not justified by policy and continued to edit war on that basis. I honestly cannot find a single point in this entire discussion where you appear to be acting in good faith. You simply moved from one disingenuous excuse to another. Volunteer Marek 05:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And this (quote) is a direct example of the kind of stonewalling and abuse of policy by User:Springee that I'm talking about: "and we can't agree even if we have a consensus". Apparently now it's not enough to have CONSENSUS we also have to have CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS, or else Springee gets to do whatever they want with the article. OF COURSE some of the people who are against consensus will argue - endlessly, tendentiously - that "there's no consensus". Right now we have almost 30 editors for including, about half as many for excluding. That's consensus any way you slice it. And yes, I know, not a vote and all but that's pretty overwhelming and honestly, if there's weak arguments which need to be discounted it's very much on the exclude side. But we can't go with the consensus because Springee has personally decided that to get consensus we need unanimity on the fact that there is in fact consensus effectively giving themselves veto power. Oh, and they also decided that it's not consensus unless more than 70% of the editors agree - a ridiculous threshold not based in any policy that they obviously pulled out of their butt. Either way, Springee gets to decide what happens. This is a situation where there is a small minority of editors who are causing trouble by refusing to abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus. That's it. That's all there is to this. Volunteer Marek 08:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You are rehashing arguments that have already been addressed. My original edit summary had two reasons for removal, BLPCRIME and WEIGHT (not stated). You reverted claiming BLPCRIME didn't apply but failed to address weight and contrary to BRD you didn't go to the talk page before reverting. You mention my incorrect use of BLPCRIME as if this were some sort of bad faith yet deliberate intent to mislead. Sorry, that is bad faith on your part. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has forgotten that BLPCRIME has limitations. Note that the moment we went to the talk page the core of my argument was not BLPCRIME. At the time you reverted my original removal you couldn't claim CONESNSUS because there was no discussion. When the text was removed the second time by a different editor that should have been the end until consensus was established. You are a long time editor and you should know that if text is challenged you need to go to discuss next. [Edit: add signature] Springee (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. You are NOW claiming that you had two reasons for removal, BLPCRIME and WEIGHT. You then sneak in the fact that you never actually mentioned WEIGHT by putting that in parentheses ("(not stated)"). Basically what you're really saying is that you did NOT mention this as a reason for your edit warring, but now you're gonna throw it into the mix after the fact as an excuse. Next you have the chutzpah to complain that ... I failed to address an objection ... YOU DIDNT FREAKIN MAKE!!! Are you serious? Do you really expect anyone to regard your actions in good faith when you resort to manipulative stunts like this? Volunteer Marek 17:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... did you follow BRD? I'm not sure you have much of a point in the rest of your comment other than to say you didn't recognize an argument that wasn't written in all caps. Springee (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have brought this up before, but part of the problem is that WP:ONUS conflicts with our current policy and practice when it comes to no-consensus outcomes. ONUS says that you need consensus to include disputed material (which means that if someone objects to long-standing text, it would in theory be removed unless a consensus can be demonstrated to keep it), whereas WP:RFC, WP:PRESERVE, and pretty much all our practice regarding intractable disputes is that the existing text remains if there is no consensus to remove it. This is something that needs to eventually be resolved on a policy level. My feeling is that there is a degree of "implied" consensus for longstanding text that varies depending on how trafficked and heavily-edited the article - that is, every edit that keeps a particular change is a light, slight endorsement of it, and with enough of those it is eventually presumed to have consensus and therefore requires demonstrated consensus to remove; whereas longstanding text on an obscure page nobody sees (or text which is tucked away somewhere easily-missed and which plainly contradicts the main thrust of the article) probably doesn't have the same presumed consensus. I feel WP:ONUS should mention something like this. And yes I'm aware that this doesn't directly relate to the dispute at hand but it needs to be resolved dammit. I keep seeing people going "well, you need consensus to keep this in the article per WP:ONUS!" and someone else going "no, it's longstanding and no-consensus outcomes default to longstanding text, so you need consensus to remove it" and the policy seems to support them both.--Aquillion (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• I find it exceptionally disingenuous for an editor who has been here for 15 years to characterize a talk page discussion involving some two dozen editors as "an issue of a couple editors stone walling and obfuscating and wikilawyering". GMG^talk 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You can find whatever you want. The numbers are pretty skewed though. Of course not every single editor in the "oppose inclusion" minority is guilty of stone walling obfuscating and wikilawyering, some just noted their opinion (which is perfectly fine). But there are certainly a few who just can't WP:DROPTHESTICK and won't let this go, even when consensus is clearly against them. Volunteer Marek 17:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Several editors who opposed did so simply because there was not enough material in the body of the article, and some commented that we needed to wait to see how the situation developed. Now, nearly a week later, there is plenty of material in the body of the article, and two other Bannon organizations are being investigated and their assets seized or frozen. Here's Bannon speaking about this, and some other cray cray, the day before he was arrested on the yacht of a Chinese fugitive.[14] - MrX 🖋 18:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't read that as just a question of length but also of substance. Have any of those editors returned and said, yes, the expanded content addresses their initial concerns? We've now had a bit of time to generate the initil version of the article text. Why not have a RfC to see if there is now a consensus for inclusion of something? Springee (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that our work here will become a lot quieter if every editor on both sides of the dispute referenced above was gently but firmly topic-banned from topics related to the 2020 United States presidential election, broadly construed, for 75 days. BD2412 T 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion and will break the logjam. I will avoid all articles from the 2020 presidential election for the next 75 days. Now you can enforce it on the rest of the editors involved. I don't really care which articles I work on. I spend most of my time working on less contentious articles, and try to avoid these types of disputes. There are a lot of articles needing improvement and contentious editing is something to avoid on this site. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for it, I'll enforce it. Not 24/7, of course, but I won't shy from it. In my experience, the editors involved will find quite a burden lifted from their shoulders, not to have to deal with this topic. BD2412 T 03:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a absurd proposal. We don't ban people "to make things quite". That's stupid. We don't ban people when they've done nothing wrong. There might very well be a couple editors here who deserve a ban - for stonewalling and misrepresenting policy in bad faith. But why the hell should other people get bans? The proposal is prima facie ridiculous. Stop waving that admin gun in our faces. Volunteer Marek 04:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And to add to the above. It might come quite as a shock to you, but the purpose of bans is NOT to make admin lives easier or shield admins from being annoyed by existence of disputes. Bans aren't here cuz you don't feel like doing your job and actually evaluating the nature of the dispute. We have bans so that we can ensure that our article CONTENT satisfies our CONTENT standards and CONTENT policies. This is WP:NOTAFORUM and you don't get to treat it as such (unless of course someone is violating NOTAFORUM). If you think otherwise you have no business being an admin. Did I mention that this is about CONTENT and not providing some of you with the thrills and highs of banning people? Volunteer Marek 04:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if this proposal was meant sarcastically (I honestly can't tell), my apologies ahead of time. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no expectation that this proposal will actually be adopted; however, we are going to end up with the same set of editors with strong feelings about the topic getting into the same sets of disputes, with increasing acerbity, for the next two-and-a-half months. As I have suggested, this would be a positive burden off the shoulders of everyone listed. BD2412 T 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can decide whether I want this "burden" getting "lifted" off my shoulders myself, thank you very much. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be an easier decision to make if you knew that it would also be "lifted" from the shoulders of all the regularly contentious editors in the area. BD2412 T 04:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, not really. First, as would be obvious if you actually looked at the dispute itself, there are FAR MORE editors who support including this info than there are those who oppose it. And THAT is the real issue - there actually is a consensus here but a couple of editors (User:Springee, User:Atsme etc) decided they're gonna stonewall this consensus by making novel (mis)interpretations of policy or derailing discussion (and as far as one of these goes, they have a history of doing this and have been topic banned because of it previously). So if you "ban all sides" you'd be banning far more people from one side than the other ... precisely because there IS consensus on this issue. This makes absolutely no sense.

Second, what do you think happens when you "ban all sides"? There's no one left to actually improve the article. Usually a flood of socks pops up and since they weren't covered by the original ban, run amok. Either way, the article/topic area usually goes to shit.

Third, it's just a simple matter of fairness. Why exactly should editors be banned when they did nothing wrong? Cuz an admin feels like it? You are seriously proposing to ban editors only because they participated in a discussion. Not because they broke 3RR. Not because they were INCIVIL. Not because they violated WP:RS or whatever. But because they commented in a discussion in a good faith exactly like they're expected to. THAT is why this proposal is just ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I would not be upset if all election related articles were locked until after the election. PackMecEng (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I proposed exactly that months ago, and it was soundly rejected.

@Volunteer Marek: If you believe that there is a specific subset of editors who are acting improperly with respect to these articles, name them and provide the evidence to support administrative action specific to those editors. I see a lot of repeat-player editors on both sides of every dispute quickly devolving to personal invective. I would, in fact, prefer to lock the articles until after the election, and only allow substantive edits (e.g., not typo fixes) agreed to by a strong consensus. BD2412 T 05:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OF COURSE there are disputes. The topic is intrinsically controversial. How in the world that justifies just giving up and locking it up just so that admins avoid being annoyed by existence of disputes is beyond me. To reiterate. The purpose of admin tools isn't to make your life easier, it's to ensure quality content. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been here since 2005. Everything in the immediate area goes to pot during the election cycle, and then gets restored to some semblance of normalcy after that dust has settled. Too many editors suffer under the rather grandiose delusion that Wikipedia articles will persuade some number of voters sufficient to justify the investment in pushing the articles in a certain direction. The best we can do is minimize that conduct until the fever breaks, and then get back to substantive changes. In other words, maintain the existing level of quality, rather than letting it slide, and then make the articles current to the post-election reality. However, I repeat my invitation for you to name and provide the diffs for specific editors whose conduct indicates that they should not be editing these articles. BD2412 T 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been here since 2005 too. And if we're talking the quality of ARTICLE CONTENT then no, everything does not "go to pot". As long as a sufficient number of editors remain engaged (editors that you wish to ban for no reason btw) then the content stays good, and in fact, improves since there's a lot to take care. These editors also take care of all the numerous fly-by-night-throw-away sockpuppet accounts and trolls that inundate these articles or even organized brigading from external websites like reddit or 4chan. Now, what does happen is that DISPUTES do tend to flare up during this time. I guess if you're an admin it's easy to confuse "disputes flare up" with "article content gets worse" but it's actually not the same thing at all. It's actually a distinctive aspect of some admins (wrong headed) mentality that to them "bad = people arguing and causing headaches for admins" rather than "bad = article content is crap". But that's a problem with those admins and that mentality. Not with the people who actually do the hard work of ensuring our articles follow reliable sources and npov. Why exactly do you want to ban them? Cuz they annoy you? Volunteer Marek 05:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Our talk pages are as open for the public to see as our articles. Endless vitriolic bickering on those pages affects our reputation (and is even sometimes reported in the media). If the regular bickerers are kicked out for the season, I would not expect them to be replaced by another cohort of bickerers; I would expect a different set of level-headed editors to step in at that point. BD2412 T 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, right, these magical "level-headed editors" will just materialize out of the internet ether once you've banned all the regulars for no reason. Makes perfect sense. I mean, you can "expect" something to happen but you know, people "expect" to win the lottery too and usually they don't. Also, it's kind of telling that you think that the discussions on the talk page are more important than the actual encyclopedic content of the article itself. The whole freakin' point of the talk pages are for people to work through the disputes. You want to ban people for doing exactly what they're suppose to do. ... ... because it annoys you or something. Volunteer Marek 08:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the summary for Springee. I also want to point out that Springee has not made ANY substantive contribution directly to the article other than to continuously revert the disputed content as described in these diffs. He is acting almost like a Single Purpose Account to remove any derogatory information from the article lead. Normally, editors add substantive content to an article and interact with each other on the talk page. Although Springee has been active on talk pages, with regard to this article all of his edits have been to censure the same content, but he has not added anything prior to or following the indictment of Steve Bannon. See User:Springee - violation of 1RR/3RR [15][16][17][18] Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those violate 1RR as all are more than 24hr apart. Additionally, any restoration of the text when it was clear the material was in dispute was a violation of NOCON. As far as I can tell, no editor has violated 1RR. If you want to expand the definition to reverts in more than 24hr then several have. I have made some other material removals from the article, not just removals of the disputed text per NOCON. If your intent is to show that lots of people have been behaving badly, well I won't argue that. Lot's of accusations of stonewalling as well as violating ONUS. This would all be much easier if we let the discussion process play out (it largely seems to have) and then used an independent closing of the discussion. As I've said more than once, the best option at this point is probably a RfC and/or suggestions of compromise text. Springee (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I get what you're saying, but here's why it wouldn't work. While the editors in question (including myself, I suppose, though in this case I haven't done much more than weigh in once on the request when it was brought to WP:RSN) are obviously the names that come up the most for disputes in that topic area, they're not the only or even the main source of problems; the divide exists in reality, not just on Wikipedia, and is therefore going to affect anyone with a strong interest in the topic area. AP2 articles in particular attract a ton of edits from new, inexperienced, or unregistered users that are generally far worse than anything an experienced editor would propose. As frustrating as the more experienced editors in those topic areas can be, they are still reasonably good at reaching consensus and at recognizing what policy requires (the amount of stuff you don't see because everyone involved quickly recognizes what's necessary is far larger than the disputes that blow up.) If you remove everyone experienced, the disputes will still happen, they will just happen between editors who are less-familiar with Wikipedia policies, especially as they apply to the sorts of disputes that come up in AP2; this will lead to more disruption overall. Beyond that, while having things dragged to WP:AN or wherever can be annoying to editors here who don't want to hear about AP2 disputes, the fact is that these are serious, probably inevitable disputes (reflecting divides in the real world and, therefore, among the sources) which have to be resolved. Removing everyone who brings them to venues like this will make things quieter for you, yes, but it will make the articles worse - these are the sorts of things our noticeboards exist to resolve, after all, so they should be getting brought here. Replacing the editors in AP2 with less experienced ones won't make the disputes go away, it will just mean they're less likely to get taken to a venue where outside opinions can be gathered and, therefore, less likely to be resolved. It's also worth taking a look at the studies mentioned on Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Analyses - generally speaking, as frustrating as experienced AP2 editors can be, there is evidence that editors tend to at least edit from a more neutral point of view as time passes and that pages that have large numbers of such experienced editors working on them tend towards neutrality. Yes, the disputes and sausage-making can get ugly sometimes, but the end results on high-traffic, high-controversy articles is generally good - our article on eg. Donald Trump might have a lot of disputes, and some people might disagree with specific details, but the article itself is high-quality overall. Our system ultimately works. If you don't like the disputes it produces along the way, just tune them out. --Aquillion (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the listing of all editors involved in this dispute. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally a good use for that list! PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment tally: Federal grand jury indictment in the lead

Support	Oppose	Ambiguous or Neutral
Captain Calm	Springee	Coffee
Activist	Drmies	Jim.henderson
Volunteer Marek	GreenMeansGo	Zaereth
MrX	Atsme	GiantSnowman
Calidum	Amakuru
SPECIFICO	Bus stop
Beyond My Ken	Jauerback
Neutrality	valereee
MastCell	Niteshift36
soibangla	MONGO
K.e.coffman	Alanscottwalker
Octoberwoodland	Maineartists
Nat Gertler	PackMecEng
Nomoskedasticity	Petrarchan47
Gbear605	Dumuzid
Jayron32	AIRcorn
Masem	Jweiss11
Aquillion	Shinealittlelight
Muboshgu
Bastun
TFD
Vadder
starship.paint
Hobit
Ravensfire
Fearless lede'r
John Broughton
Citing
hako9
29	18	4

Really? On AN, we are going to list the names of people who commented at BLPN on edits and content? How obnoxious being brought up at AN for doing our best at editor's work examining content and policy for making consensus. My editing position has nothing to do with my politics, and I don't generally edit in the area. ONUS is clear though per Masem, Levitch, JBL etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Editors will disagree about whether this will work, so why not put it to the test? Try it for two weeks, see if it makes a difference. Lev!vich 12:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Only to comment on something that I think is relevant that VM said above that I found to be an issue in these types of issues: I guess if you're an admin it's easy to confuse "disputes flare up" with "article content gets worse" but it's actually not the same thing at all. It's actually a distinctive aspect of some admins (wrong headed) mentality that to them "bad = people arguing and causing headaches for admins" rather than "bad = article content is crap". But that's a problem with those admins and that mentality. Not with the people who actually do the hard work of ensuring our articles follow reliable sources and npov. Remember that while accurate articles on WP is one thing, minimizing disruption in the open wiki process is another goal. Editors insisting they are being right by following reliable sources and NPOV, but not following established the processes are just as problematic to admins as those that introduce bad content with no sources or that is POV-ladened. And in the AP2 area, this had/had gotten a bit out of hand with the experienced editors that should know better. Part of it I believe is an emotional drive, a loathing that is hard to stop due to current events around the US Presidency and right of the extreme right, which I can't fault editors for having, but its manifesting itself worse on WP in terms of insisting on being "right" in these types of discussions. We need more editors to step back, look at the larger picture, keep in mind we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and not every immediate incident needs to be reported in our articles nor do our articles need to be doing the work of the news media - we should be significantly lagging behind that coverage when it comes to controversial material. Bunch of other points around this aspect that editors on all sides of the general AP2 debate simply need to keep in mind, but I think more of the weight of this is on the experienced ones who should know better here. --Masem (t) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• But the question of "is the topic area, on the whole, producing good articles" is the ultimate question we have to answer. The purpose of Wikipedia ultimately to produce good articles. That doesn't excuse individual misconduct, and we also have to be able to retain editors in the long term (which means editing in AP2 shouldn't be a terrible experience), but it's reasonable for anyone suggesting drastic changes to have to point to specific flawed outcomes that they're trying to address, or to answer the question of whether it's reasonable (in the current political climate) for the AP2 topic area to be less fraught than it is. Many of the disputes we're having are ones that ultimately do need to be discussed and which are going to require a lot of effort to resolve, simply because they're serious disputes in the real world and therefore among our sources; and many of the people who drop in and immediately have an unpleasant time in that topic area do so because they brought a degree of that conflict in with them, so to speak - we cannot eliminate the bad blood or rancorous divide with mass bans, since they don't originate on Wikipedia; and, if anything, more experienced editors are generally ones who have learned enough of our policies and practices to reach at least some sort of compromise or consensus. And especially when you start delving into suggestions like "we need to lag further behind news media" (which is absolutely not what WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM / WP:BREAKING says and has never reflected any sort of policy or practice), you're suggesting fairly drastic changes to how we write articles - you need to actually show that there are problems with the articles (not just "people are arguing a lot") to back that up. I'm not seeing it. On the whole, any heavily-edited article, even on controversial political topics, is pretty close to how the topic would be covered anywhere else. I'm all for making AP2 more civil and less painful to work in, but I don't think there are fundamental problems with the articles it's producing, nor am I seeing swaths of better editors willing to step up if everyone currently in the topic area disappeared; and I'm not really seeing anyone making any arguments that would support such drastic changes. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• First, I disagree in general any large-scale temp block or ban is needed, and there is actually very little actionable here beyond a large amount of trouting on the immediate case. My point is we need experience editors to remember they are also to be working in consensus with others; seniority on WP means nothing here, but that does sometimes lead those editors to insist they are right. The ultimate end goal is produce good articles, but not at the expense of short-term disruption or other short-term problems, and if all editors but more specifically the experienced ones stepped back to make sure the editing process was smoother, particularly in the face of newer editors that want to be confrontational, that would help.
• Second, on my point "we should be significantly lagging behind that coverage when it comes to controversial material", we don't handle covering the immediate events of a ongoing controversial situation beyond the factual elements well, because it becomes a battle of what current opinions and analysis we put into our articles and what emphasis to give them, which is immediately going to become a battle of editor ideologies and will create conflict, and that's before adding in impact from new editors/IP. We're an encyclopedia, we should not be documenting current opinion (unless its directly relevant to the factual coverage of the topic), but its long-term opinion, and the longer we wait for dust to settle on these types of events before we try to figure out how to describe events, the better off and smoother the editing process will be. The Banner case is not quite that (that he was indicted and arrested is fact, but question of weight of this being lede material is related to the general idea), but it is indicative of this larger problem, and again, this rush to add things that are not factual or that could wait for consensus discussion to complete is where we get problems that occur. And again, no admin action is needed now to fix it, but better awareness by all that this is a long-standing problem and all need to be more conscious of its existence. --Masem (t) 14:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. If admins want to start being more liberal with their application of DS for cause (and they're willing to weather the inevitable storm that will come with doing so), that's one thing. But banning the people who know the material best for volunteering their time to try to sort out a difficult matter despite a subset misbehaving is crazy talk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rhododendrites. The standards of behavior on these pages should be higher than average, and the bar for sanctioning people for cause lower—that's the intent behind discretionary sanctions. In practice, the opposite seems to be true—we tolerate endless bludgeoning, bad-faith argumentation, misuse of talkpages as platforms for partisan talking points and outright misinformation, and so on. I've done a lot of work at WP:AE and I can understand why admins are reluctant to get involved; we've allowed the cost of holding people accountable to exceed the threshold that most sane volunteers are willing to accept. The answer that's proposed here is basically a total abdication of administrative oversight and an exercise in lazy, harmful false equivalence. Looking at the two left-most columns of the table above, there are editors in each column who consistently provide thoughtful input, and editors in both columns who shouldn't be allowed to touch a political article with a ten-foot pole. It's not even that difficult to figure out which are which. But Wikipedians are deeply wedded to false equivalence, and to the lazy and reflexive assumption that fairness involves sanctioning a relatively equal number of people on each side of a dispute without investigating any more deeply. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• BD2412's proposal is ridiculous. Of course as an election cycle in the US nears, the tempers get more heated...thats human nature. So long as the discussions stick to content and not contributors who gives a shit? We have AE for the most problematic editors so anyone who is beleived to be acting against standards can be dragged there for review where a consortium of admins can render a decision. Plans to look at a list of names, most of whom have made maybe a couple innoculous comments/votes! in totality in the discussion, and topic ban them for 2.5 months and/or lock ALL political articles off from editing is a preposterous notion and unwikipedian.--MONGO (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• This may seem a radical idea, but how about banning those who are clearly, and repeatedly, problematic instead of everyone in a discussion. Surely we know the criteria for discretionary sanctions by now. They may be discretionary, but there still exist guidelines. OTOH, if you do ban everyone in the discussion, I’d have the articles to myself as I’m not on either list – having two minds about this particular conflict. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Objective3000: What's the process by which we decide who's "on the list"? Short of an arbcom case? Lev!vich 17:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No “list” per se. Individual enforcement of DS. Setting the bar is always difficult. But, there are obvious abuses. Perhaps a lower bar for warnings, particularly in the areas of bludgeoning and personal attacks. O3000 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposal, per reasoning of Aquillion, MastCell et al. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• In retrospect, my initial proposal swept too broadly, as it would encompass even those who happened by that particular discussion. However, I think we can consider this discussion as putting the involved editors on notice that there will be zero tolerance for misconduct in this topic area going forward. Incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and other tendentious editing, and comparable breaches of community decorum, can and will result in topic bans in this area until after the election. That is, to my understanding, the standard already in place. BD2412 T 18:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  The alternative is to watch AE and or other noticeboards and work to mete out this form of "justice" in a more official manner rather than pulling out your gun and shooting based on your opinion of what is and what is not a breach of civility, etc. Unless of course you're prepared to watch hundreds of pages for law breakers and then go full on Judge Dredd on them.--MONGO (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Incivility is not even nearly the biggest issue. Most of the issues fall under WP:GAME, specifically WP:FORCEDINTERPRET, WP:STONEWALLING, and WP:GASLIGHTING. There's also a bit of WP:BATTLE by a very small number of editors. - MrX 🖋 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that incivility, at least as typically defined by Wikipedians, is not the best place to start. Wikipedian efforts to enforce "civility" typically focus on superficial politeness, and often worsen the situation in contentious topic areas by enabling civil POV-pushing and driving off good editors who get frustrated (per rule #2). Of course, if we were to enforce a grown-up definition of civility—one that includes a responsibility to interact honestly with fellow editors, listen at least as much as you speak/post, avoid hijacking conversations, etc., then that would be refreshing. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• As these pages are already under an arbitration enforcement order, it is not necessary to wait for instances of misconduct–which encompasses all of the identified issues–to make it to a noticeboard. Of course, any editor who is subject to a topic ban on this basis is free to appeal that determination at WP:ANI, but should observe the topic ban until such time as it is lifted through that process. BD2412 T 19:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Shoot first and ask questions later...got it. I have to (oddly) agree with the comment well above by VolunteerMarek about not waving your admin gun in our faces. Maybe just not fully understanding your approach but it sure sounds draconian and as someone who lost the BIT due to being draconian and over zealous, rest assured that the outcome of such bold actions would likely lead to much angst, everywhere.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

At a minimum, User:Springee should be topic banned from the article for violating 1RR. They have not made any substantive contributions to the article other than to edit war and constantly revert, and are the problem editor here. The rest of the editors all observe and attempt to follow the rules, Springee does not. 1RR/3RR does not require a 24 hour grace period between each revert if the content reverted is the same challenged content. I think if you ban Springee from the article things will quiet down as the rest of the editors seem capable of working together. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Where have I violated 1RR? Per your thinking any editor that restored/removed disputed content more than once should be blocked. Perhaps if I were the only editor who reverted but I count at least 6 editors who have removed the same disputed text. Why not block editors who failed to show consensus before restoring contested material? Remember this is new material so the ONUS to show consensus for inclusion is on those who wish to add it, not the other way around. As I've said several times, the impasse exists because we can't agree if a consensus has been established for inclusion. Rather than requests blocks, why not request outside help in establishing if a consensus exists (RfC, other dispute resolution?). Springee (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the same content over and over, even across 24 hour periods is a violation of 1RR/3RR if the content reverted is the same. You are a disruptive editor and you have not added anything substantive to this article. How about you take a break from the Steve Bannon article for a couple of weeks and find something else to work on. User:Springee - violation of 1RR/3RR [19][20][21][22] Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about over 24hr reverts then why didn't you request other editors stop restoring the material until a consensus was clearly established? Why is it disruptive to expect editors to follow ONUS but not disruptive when editors re-add material that was clearly in dispute? Rather than accuse me of bad faith why not start a RfC to address the issue. How about this, if others are in agreement, I will start the RfC. I will make sure editors have a chance to review the question before making the RfC live. It will avoid a lot of the back and forth and add some stability to the discussion. Springee (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed a RfC here [[23]]. It's not live as I want to make sure all feel the question is accurate and fair. Springee (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

^ This is exactly the kind of WP:GAMING I'm talking about. - MrX 🖋 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes it gaming? How is it any more gaming than having just a few more editors who want inclusion thus any back and forth can be "won" by the side who can revert more? I've asked you and others to suggest a way to handle the consensus question impasse. You haven't so I took the initiative and proposed a RfC and question. You are welcome to propose an alternative but it's hardly reasonable for you to say "look at the vote tally" and say that consensus has been reached when a large number of editors don't agree. Gaming would apply if one or two editors were gaming the rules. This is 15 editors opposing. 6 editors reverting the addition. You are welcome to propose some other method to resolve the dispute but if you can't, a RfC is certainly a proven and accepted method. Springee (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As this has dragged on and on, the tally has remained steady at 24-15, greater than a three-fifths supermajority. soibangla (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Springee:

1. You reverted the new material[24]
2. Consensus was emerging on the talk page.[25]. Realizing that you were not getting your way you
3. WP:ADMINSHOPPED[26]
4. then you WP:FORUMSHOPPED[27]
5. You repeatedly reverted the material even when consensus was evident.[28]
6. You tried to bait me by bringing up something completely unrelated to the content dispute.[29]
7. You promptly deleted my attempt to discuss these concerns.[30]
8. Another RfC will be the last straw. - MrX 🖋 23:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A comment: I know Springee posted to my talk page before I participated in the BLP/N but my participation there was not based on that post as I have been trying to ignore direct requests on my talk page due to a prior situation. I was aware of the situation on Bannon that day from other sources outside WP, and when I saw the topic in BLP/N I replied there. (And as you'll see, likely with a reply that Springee would not have wanted, since I favored inclusion). --Masem (t) 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

Is there anything that needs admin attention here or is this just a content dispute that's spilled into a third forum? I'm inclined to close this unless there's some actionable request that requires an administrator. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has spilled over into this forum. The proposal by the admin above to ban all editors does not appear to have garnered enough support to implement. Also, several involved users are preparing a filing for Arbitration Enforcement to attempt to resolve the dispute by having several editors sanctioned. You should probably just close this thread and allow the editors to take the dispute to arbitration enforcement. Unless an admin is willing to close the talk page discussions at Talk:Steve Bannon then this thread is just a waste of the admins time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a content dispute that's spilled into a third forum, it shouldn't been opened, and I suggest it be promptly closed. soibangla (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically one sides refused to follow onus but looks like it has been straightened out. PackMecEng (talk) 01:33, 27 August 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.

Is something broken with AfC Review Script?

Hi - sorry, on mobile and not sure where I'd start investigating this anyway, but see Draft:Ida Friman. I declined it as non-English, but the script has delivered an impenetrable message to the user - looks like something is broken. Thanks to anyone more technically minded who can suggest a fix. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you may have made a typo. What's on the user page is exactly what is on the draft. John from Idegon (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah. It seems that the 'language' field is populated by a '1' by default, at least on Android - that seems to have caused this. I'll try to fix the message and apologise when I'm next on my laptop... GirthSummit _(blether) 22:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it is and it is not. Declining for "lang" gives you an option to give the language, so you can suggest the appropriate language wikipedia, but, bizzarely IMO, the option is loaded with a default of "1" which means nothing, so the template generates gibberish because it can't substitute it with an appropriate language, or the appropriate language wikipedia. You might not have noticed the "1", and so failed to remove it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WT:AFC may be a better venue. Script is maintained by @Enterprisey:, I think. Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thanks - I came to that conclusion while composing the above reply and tinkering with it. I'll bear that in mind... GirthSummit _(blether) 22:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reporting threats of violence?

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've removed this thread as advised at WP:EMERGENCY. Thanks! Sandstein 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, I've revdel'd the edit and the edit summary. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 30 August 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.

Archive bots archiving declined unblocks

Leaving this here for admin awareness. I recently noticed that a declined unblock notice had been removed from a blocked user's talk page. I was about to revert and warn the user when I don't know why I did but I checked the page history, and the notice was not removed by the user but by ClueBot III. Our user pages guideline says that declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block may not be removed by the user (emphasis added) and this point even has its own shortcut, WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, but I guess this doesn't technically forbid other users (nor bots) from archiving the notices, nor does it require that they remain visible. I suggest they should be required to remain because they serve an administrative function (notifying admins patrolling unblock requests about previous declines for the same block). I asked about this at User talk:ClueBot Commons and then forgot about it; someone responded that that's how the bot is expected to work, but perhaps the decline template could be programmed to include {{DNAU}}, in which case the archiving bots would ignore the thread. So I have two questions for the community:

1. Should the user pages guideline be updated to remove "by the user" from the guidance not to remove declined unblocks? (i.e. should declined unblocks be required to be visible until the block is lifted or expires?)
2. Should {{unblock accepted}} {{unblock reviewed}} be coded to subst {{DNAU}}, and can that be made to transclude the active block's expiry as the do-not-archive-until date or manage that some other way?

Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes on 1 and 2 Hadn't even considered that as a possibility, but I can see how a user could easily abuse the archiving system to hide unblocks. They wouldn't be breaking the letter of the law if they don't remove it, but instead just set the auto-archive time to something really short like a day. Unblock declines are important to see and I would not instinctively think to search through an archive to find old unblock requests. It is also a waste of time to do so. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll start by tilting at a windwill: I still don't think we should have this rule unless they're requesting another unblock. If someone is blocked, requests an unblock, it's declined, they blank the page, and don't request another unblock, I think that should be fine. It seems pointless escalation and unintentional gravedancing to me to re-add the declined unblock request. But for some reason the policy is what it is, so assuming we don't change this policy...Grudgingly OK with both, but not convinced this is needed. Rewording the policy would be fine, except I worry some hardass is going to threaten the user when a bot archives the thread. Adding the {{dnau}} template automatically is OK as long as it expires at the same time as the block; if that can't be done, then I oppose #2. But this seems like an edge case, and it might be better to have someone who is bothered by a bot archiving to re-add it, add the {{dnau}} themselves, and not complicate the automation. Finally, @Ivanvector:, I think you mean {{unblock declined}} in #2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Good catch, I actually meant {{unblock reviewed}}, but both of the others redirect to that template anyway. I get the concern about #2, I have no idea if it's possible to code a template to transclude an expiry date of a current block, and if not then what is a reasonable expiry? Maybe DNAU should be coded into just the "declined" code so that it would not prevent archiving an accepted request, and/or the user could just archive it themselves after the block expires. Or maybe it's just too complicated. For the situation I mentioned above, I did just add {{dnau}} myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should remove Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK completely, and let admins updates their remarks in block message.--GZWDer (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

G6 backlog

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 are 20 candidates for speedy deletion per criterion G6, at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. One page has been tagged for over 3 days. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 25 August 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 unafraid to dive into patrolling CSDs but tend to avoid G6s. I find, in most cases, it's very time consuming to figure out if a nomination is actually uncontroversial. Are there any good essays on reviewing G6s because maybe I'm just overthinking things? Or alternatively any good advice out there for experienced sysops about how to patrol G6? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I also find pages in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion to consistently be the least uncontroversial speedy candidates, with the sole exception of empty dated maintenance categories. It's largely a mix of 1) stealthy bypasses of WP:Requested moves that'll move the angry opposition onto your talkpage instead of the article's; 2) another WP:ANRFC for TFD closures; and 3) a dumping ground for things that aren't listed in the speedy deletion criteria that the tagger thinks should be deleted but can't be bothered taking to AFD or MFD or wherever. I avoid it like the plague. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason, by contrast, usually does have legitimate speedy requests in it, mostly tagged by people too inexperienced at enwiki to play the Twinkle-based pick-a-vaguely-similar-sounding-criterion game. —Cryptic 06:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we go to VPP and propose deprecating G6?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if you plan on also creating some form of "T5" deletion to use on templates being deleted following a TFD. 90% of my non-copyvio deletions are G6s that are a result of such discussions. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that the majority of my own recent deletions are G6 (category redirects blocking the move of the target), so indeed we should keep the criterion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also found it useful when individuals create articles in the template (or other similarly incorrect) namespaces, for example Template:No Sleep 'til Sudbury: Adventures in 80s Hard Rock and Metal Deconstruction. Agent00x (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Like all of the criteria, if you think a G6 nomination is uncontroversial then go ahead and delete, and if not then decline it. Or if you don't have the time or understanding to decide, leave it for someone else. That's how I do them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

G6 is what I use when a non-legitimate GAN reviewer opens a GA review page, and we need to reuse the page name for when the eventual actual reviewer comes along. (Non-legitimate: IPs, who are not allowed to review GA nominations, and the nominators, who are not allowed to review their own nomination. Plus the occasional case where an editor opens a review page and disappears without starting the actual review, abandoning it, so we again need the page deleted so an actual review can be created with that page name.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: editing will be disabled for an hour on September 1st

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.

---

On September 1st, 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation will temporary switch all wikis to read-only mode as part of test to see if the WMF can reliably switch data centers in the event of a disaster. Read more at m:Tech/Server switch 2020. Goose^(Talk!) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And yet they cannot or will not go dark in support of George Floyd. SMDH. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Did they ever go dark in support of anyone or any cause? M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

At least the English one did to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act. only (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the culture of Wikipedia was very different back then. I doubt we would be able to agree to do so again today; I recall discussions related to... I forget which one, but a comparable act that sparked online protests, and it was clearly a nonstarter. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Some non-eng WP:s also "closed" in 2018 and 2019. Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For anyone else panicking about what they will do in their free time that day, You will not be able to edit for up to an hour. Phew! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, any suggestions on what we could do? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've heard outside is a nice place. I might try that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Being on WP while you're outside is nice, but WP will be down, so what do we do while we're outside? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure I'm allergic to the outside. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So much for #StayHome #StaySafe. I foresee a peak in coronavirus infections in the second week of September with all those Wikipedians going out .. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

...starting at 14:00 UTC. - MrX 🖋 19:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Could always go find a small wiki to edit (and possibly save, although that might take a little more time tan the WMF have allocated...)  :) ——Serial 05:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Are the wikis not all going down? I would support any help at the Scots wiki. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  This affects all wikis. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 10:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps its time to check out Wikipedia Simulator.24.151.56.107 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't there be a banner at the main page or at least at the people's watchlists about this coming test? Otherwise that's the kind of a surprise that will freak a lot of people out. Nsk92 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  There have been warning banners for all logged-in users on/before previous read-only times and I would be very surprised if there wasn't one this time. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 10:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  See the WP:VPT discussion on this - there is a CN planned. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• The title here is a little vague. Perhaps we should change it to "Heads up: editing will be disabled for an hour on September 1st @ 1400 UTC"? SQL^{Query me!} 17:47, 27 August 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.

• Oppose. Oh, darn it, I missed the !vote. BD2412 T 15:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What to do about a grumpy user?

I don't even know where to begin. I don't want to start providing links or evidence or anything, but it's clear that an experienced user has a long-term pattern of making generally correct edits, but aggressively refusing to discuss it outside of an edit summary unless it's precisely on _their_ terms. They are heavy on the 'revert' and 'undo' buttons. They're a frequent flyer on AN/I and 3RR. They've had a series of short blocks. Where's the best place to discuss the pattern and practice, rather than a specific event? tedder (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is fine, I suppose — but you need to give us something to go on. El_C 06:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You could ignore it. There is nothing wrong with being grumpy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Only discussing disputes via edit summaries is however wrong, although "unless it's precisely on _their_ terms" is unclear. If an editor won't discuss a dispute unless you approach them on the talk page and say "oh high king of Wikipedia, will you please join the discussion on the article talk page?", that's clearly a problem. If an editor refuses to discuss a dispute on editor talk pages and will only discuss it on article talk pages that's okay. If an editor never opens a talk page discussion and making several reverts without joining a discussion someone else opens until someone finally warns them about edit warring and only then joins it that's also a problem. Although if they're fairly experienced and have enough friends, IMO convincing the community to do something about it may be difficult. Point being, there's too little to go on from the comments to know if there is a genuine problem. If you've talked to the editor about it before and others have as well, the only real option is likely to be opening a discussion here or at ANI with diffs/evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since grumpy and "generally correct edits" came up, I'll mention probably one of the trickiest issues to deal with is an editor who is often correct in their edits and most editors including those they get into an edit war with tend to agree. But this requires someone actually explains it in more than terse edit summaries or yelling at the editor for being wrong without offering an explanation, and the editor concerned seems unable or unwilling to ever offer such an explanation. (To be clear, I'm thinking about cases where just some brief explanation is enough, rather than cases where some completely newbie utterly confused about our policies and guidelines needs a lot of hand holding.) Some feel that the editor should be just let be and others should deal with the mess their style of editing creates. Some feel as a collaborative project, such attitudes are harmful and the editor should be pushed to change. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Tedder, can you provide links to the editor's diffs? This sounds exactly like a situation I am in right now, and I am curious if the user you are talking about is the same one I am currently involved with. Even if this is not the same situation, this will still be helpful on how to handle these cases for both of us. Thanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In other inquiries, What to do about a drunken sailor? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Close challenge

User:Kraose, a user with just over 1K edits, recently closed a highly-contentious RfC on The People's of Mujahedin of Iran talk page. Kraose also previously participated in another very contentious ANI report ("Iranian opposition articles") about POV pushing in this same article.

I have asked Kraose to consider undoing their close based on WP:BADNAC, but they appear to be currently absent from Wikipedia. I would kindly request for an admin to review this and hopefully allow an experienced and uninvolved closer to close that RfC. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep the close as is BadNac doesn't apply here. The close well done correctly. Yes there are 10 yes to 6 no votes, however, the yes votes offer no real policy while the no's do. Further, this RFC was | done before and the OP was asked to split that RFC into separate points, which they've done. I note that Alex-h was on the opposite side of the close as well. Leave the close as is, it's correct. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn Once you have supported a user being blocked/banned on a specific page you should not, as a non-admin, close a discussion on that page opened by the user. In this case User:Kraose supported sanctions on user who opened the RFC so should not have closed it. Also, their close was deficient since they ignored the strong support votes to concentrate on the weak support votes, while ignoring the fact that the oppose votes were mostly devoid of value.AlmostFrancis (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Had I closed it myself, I would have closed it "no consensus". The closing statement was carefully articulated. I see no basis to question the closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close - The outcome is well within reason. I don't see any compelling evidence that Kraose is WP:INVOLVED and don't believe that commenting about a conduct issue disqualifies someone from assessing consensus. Kraose has more than enough experience, and absent evidence of poor judgement, their close should stand. - MrX 🖋 17:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. A comment of I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area over a year ago in a conduct RFC on ANI isn't enough to make someone WP:INVOLVED for the entire topic area of Iranian opposition. Contrary to the argument that that ANI was entirely about POV pushing on that article, it was just one part of it, and unless I misread the history of that discussion, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article wasn't even mentioned in the report until after Kraose had weighed in. Beyond that, their assessment here is reasonable - arguments like would make better sense or the content is related are not strong arguments, while the opposition has detailed explanations for why the sections are different. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, you've misread that ANI case. As AlmostFrancis says, Kraose supported the RFC's OP to be blocked from the same page this RFC is about. That may or may not show a potential sign of impartiality, but thought it could be a valid concern in a highly-contentious RfC. Also pinging @L235: who also left a message on Kraose's talk page about this. Alex-h (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Kiev page move

Hi. I'm not sure what happened, or indeed why it has happened, but an old requested move that was closed in July has been re-opened. Thought I'd bring it here to flag it up to a wider audience, incase anyone has missed it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it was closed because someone promised to file an ArbCom case, and this has not happened, so disruption must move on.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Did anyone promise that? See my here. ——Serial 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I only know this. I unwatched the page a long time ago because of regular drama going on there and I was not following the developments closely.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Privileges by User:El C

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.

---

User:El C massively abused his admin privileges. Look at my history. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Massively? Your edit made no sense — you called it an improvement, but how so? I warned you to stop, but you continued to revert, so you were restricted from making that edit again. El_C 10:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Makes no sense" is reason enough for a one-week ban? Thank you for making my point.

Please tell El C to stop abusing his admin powers. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be wildly disproportinate for a 1 week full block. You were blocked from a single article. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Firstly, I'm glad that El C found this, as you seem to have ignored the size 50 coloured text requiring you to notify them on their Talk Page. Personally I'd have noted in the first rollback/warning specifically that you don't need spaces in a subheader, just to make sure the 84.132 was aware that that was the reason they were being reverted. I also note the IP editor seems to dramatically assume bad faith and bolt to the top possible level without considering talking to the admin in question first. The current situation (with the partial block ending in a few days) seems fine, I don't see abuse by El C. I also don't see any need to boomerang the IP, as I imagine someone might suggest, but their ABF/non-communication viewpoint will need to change if they continue. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand why the IP was blocked (you were both 3RRing over bloody spaces in a heading???); I don't understand why the block is for 1 week; and I don't understand how the IP can post here while blocked?! GiantSnowman 10:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's just a partial block, so that the IP can go on editing elsewhere instead of making that nonsensical edit. I warned the IP on their talk page that they need to cease from reverting that edit back. El_C 10:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That matter little. The fact remains that you made a block for a content dispute, and you had to dishonest to even give a reason. That's clear abuse. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. You add whitespace to two section headers, but leave the remaining ones unspaced, for no reason that I can decipher. Again, not a content dispute. I have no view or preference regarding whitespace in section headers. El_C 10:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand, so you block. Nothing more really needs to be said. Again, thank you for making my point. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you ignored my warnings, did not followup on the discussion on your talk page, and kept on reverting. El_C 10:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then you don't understand, you give a warning, you still don't understand, then you block. Better?

Now you are just making shit up. What discussion on my talk page? Are you talking about you template, the one I follow-uped on? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making that comment, I was also unaware that article-level blocks are even possible, and assumed that this page is a specific exception from general blocks. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a block for content dispute over white space, with a false explanation. That's not an assumption of bad faith, that's clear evidence. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's disruptive editing on your part. To what end, I still have no idea. El_C 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please quote which part of WP:DISRUPT you are talking about. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good-faith editors do not raise a storm over an issue like this. Use the article talk page or a MOS page if really convinced that your preference for heading spaces is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Good-faith editors ignore abuse of admin privileges? Yeah, that would work well for you I guess....

I would have gladly used the talk page, it's not me that used a block to end the discussion. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why were you keen on making this edit to the article? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The first one? It's vastly more common to see white spaces used this way, and I think it improves legibility. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You were warned to stop because the edit was disruptive, but you kept on reverting anyway. My last comment on your talk page was left unanswered, El_C 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So we had a content dispute over white space, and you ended it by blocking me. Thanks once more for making my point. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• This block seems a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. The edit in question may have been unhelpful, but it was not disruptive to the point of constituting an exception to our policy on involvement. Salvio 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  It was the response to the edit that was disruptive as much as the edit was. I don't think I was involved, because I have no content preference whatsoever. El_C 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  That comment of mine turned out to be sadly prophetic.

  Now you change your story, and give a salty comment on my talk page as a reason for an article ban. So you admit that the reason given in the ban was a lie.

  Also you should look up the term "involved". It might not mean what you think it means. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Any admin should feel free to lift the partial block — I really could care less about the whitespace. It just seemed like a redundant edit whose reinsertion was disruptive. This the IP was warned about — but they kept on reverting, anyway, even after the warnings. El_C 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That response was not disruptive, it was cranky, but that's to be expected when you get accused of editing disruptively. That said, you were engaged in a content dispute and blocked the guy you were reverting. It doesn't matter whether you have a content preference at all, it matters that you blocked the editor you were in a dispute with. And, as far as I'm concerned, the usual exceptions here do not apply, because the edit was not blatantly disruptive. Salvio 10:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I did not accuse the editor of being disruptive. I placed a uw-test2 warning on their talk page, and that was their response. Them reverting after the warnings was disruptive, in my mind. But again, feel free to lift the partial block. El_C 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Salvio, I do not see at all how this is evidence of involvement, let alone a textbook case. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we are dealing with LTA and just wasting our time. At least I am not going to follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is LTA? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother, found it. Do you have any evidence of any abuse (now or long term), or is this just you way of dealing with any criticism of an admin? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion: There's a lot of stuff going on here, but here goes: In general, the IP's 22 edits on Wikipedia have been of poor quality -- many of them have been making needless invisible adjustments to spacing which (such as the edits in question). I've gone through his substantive edits and reverted a couple which were disruptive. That said, the default spacing on Wikipedia when an article is created or new threads are auto-created is to have spaces before and after the ==. Why that is, I have no idea, since almost all experienced editors, when writing articles or adding headers, do not use spaces and prefer them without the spaces. That said, the IP was merely conforming the spaces in the headers on the article, and El C reverted the IP needlessly, used Rollback improperly, warned the IP improperly, and edit-warred over an edit that was entirely correct, and then blocked an editor from the page he was edit-warring with them on, which was indeed an WP:INVOLVED block. None of this looks good on El C's part, and he should avoid such in the future. Nobody comes out looking good here, and people should probably keep an eye on the IP's edits going forward. But his edits on Spitzer (bullet) were entirely correct, if useless, and there was no cause to block him. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The problem was that only two headers were added with whitespace, leaving all the rest unspaced for some reason. Which seemed bizarre and disruptive. I warned, yet reverting continued. But, okay, I take that analysis to heart and will strive to do better. El_C 11:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see; I failed to notice the number of headers in the entire article and whether they had spaces or not (the diff window only showed three headers). I think we are indeed dealing with an LTA (or WP:NOTHERE) here, who is making deliberately disruptive edits along with an occasional constructive edit. I think this IP needs to be under careful scrutiny and possibly blocked as WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit extremely vague accusation to punish me for throwing shade at your fellow editor. No reasons give, just a "feeling". --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, happy to go with the flow. But the whole thing is quite bizarre to me. El_C 11:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The IP obviously knew what Rollback is, and was for some reason tracking whether his useless, disruptive, and incomplete edit was retained (why?), and then edit-warred over it by reverting you twice. These are clearly disruptive behaviors, and IMO the IP should be site-blocked for WP:DE for at least a period of time, especially for this absurd wikilawyering in and via this thread. I'm personally not sure these new page-blocks are an improvement over full blocks. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a very experienced editor and never claimed otherwise. Pulling a block out of thin air is an obvious attempt to stifle criticism of your buddy admins. Shame on you!

Your attempt to dehumanize me disgusts me. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

While I obviously agree with your opinion regarding this case, I'm puzzled as to why you call my changes of "poor quality". Yes most of my edit are small, but that's hardly the same thing.

I could find one edit (not a couple) you reverted, and your version is as bad as mine, because the entire sentence is malfomed. (I missed that earlier.) That one change is a reason to keep an eye out for me? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Found a second one, more a question of style than anything else. I think your version is more ambigious, and thus less preferable in an encyclopedia. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad El C dealt with this. The whitespace edits make no difference to the render, the only thing they do is clutter page histories. It's hardly a content dispute to revert something so absolutely pointless. To add some context: if this was a new logged-in editor making the whitespace additions, many editors would rightly think they were whitespace-gaming to AC status. There's a lot of mud-dragging going on here for what is really a storm in a teacup.Zindor (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The storm started with the block. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Abuse of Rollback and Abuse of the admin tools - El C. This is shit, on your behalf. You used rollback even after the IP told you that they were not making a test edit. You made zero effort to inquire about the edit and instead continued to use rollback on non-vandalistic edits. That would be grounds for removal of rollback. Then on top of that, while edit-warring with an IP, you used your admin tools to gain the upper hand. That's not right. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Upper hand to achieve what? I deemed it disruptive editing, hence the rollbacks. My warnings were ignored and reverting continued, hence the partial block. El_C 11:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dude, seriously. Disruptive editing is not vandalism <- that's from DE. What is rollback for? To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. It is not clear why you'd undo the edit in the first place since whitespace around headings and subheadings is what I've always seen and used. I would not expect it to be clear to the IP what's wrong with their edit, either. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, Rollback is not restricted to vandalism; it can be used to revert "problematic edits" and "edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". The IP's edit (and reverts) was disruptive and completely unnecessary: it added spaces to only 2 of the article's 14 headers (thus de-conforming the headers). The fact that the IP edit-warred over this useless and clearly disruptive edit is more proof their intention was to disrupt rather than to improve. I myself would likely have used rollback in this case -- a case of a driveby making 2 tiny invisible piecemeal changes which dis-conform the entire article. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive ABF, but I'm used to that. Rules do not apply when trying to take down IP editors. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm obviously not the only one looking at the IP's edit history and thinking 'This is not a new editor'. The unnecessarily combative talk page posts like this or particularly this are rather odd, as is the fact that they knew to come to WP:AN. I don't think it's WP:BKFIP, but it looks like it might be someone with a similar behaviour. Number 57 11:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not a new editor, and never claimed I was. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an idle question going begging here, so I'll be the bunny who asks it - have your previous edits been via IP or are there user accounts in there as well? If so what were they, just so we know who we're all talking to? -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well, could just be that the IP read the manual. But yes, most likely they've edited before, could be just another IP. Looking at their range and considering the pattern, I'm guessing those July edits are also them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• How about we require the IP to fully explain each of their edits in a full edit summary, going forward? And refrain from altering spacing? Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So my edits are tiny accd. to your own description, but they require full summaries, all the while you are silent to the fact that El C admitted to making a false statement in his block summary. Next time I'm the victim of admin abuse someone remembers, finds a inconsequential edit without a summary and I can be punished for my insolence this serious break of the community rules. Yeah, that sounds fair and balanced to me, no reason at all to assume bad faith on your part.

Your attempts to dehumanize me are still disgusting. El C was overbearing, you are taking it to a whole new level. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, and never claimed I was - Okay, enough with this game playing here. What's your prior account IP 84.132.144.123? Have you been previously blocked by the administrator who implemented action against the IP you are using now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I last used my account more than a decade ago, and I don't think I've ever had any contact with any editor involved in this before today. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you let us know the account name? It helps if we can all know who we're talking to, even if you haven't used it in some time. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I went dark for a reason. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What was that reason? Did you declare a clean start? Are you using multiple accounts and IPs now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your turn, see my questions below. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And let me guess IP 84.132.144.123, you are certainly, surely and undoubtedly NOT conscious of this recent thread here[31], correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not before I clicked your link, no. --84.132.144.123 (talk)

What a coincidence, huh? Don't you think IP 84.132.144.123? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, GizzyCatBella, it's a coincidence that the IP brought a complaint about the admin who blocked them in a content dispute. Instead of against some other admin who didn't. Are you also going to imply that the IP made El C use their tools? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe in such coincidences, but I'm accepting their answer. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't make sense of your own libel, but can't admit it. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? You say this was a trap? I picked an article El C never touched before to make him abuse his tools, just to report him here? Dude, take a step back and listen to yourself! -84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat my previous question to 84.132.144.123 that hasn't been answered - Have you (your prior account as you acknowledge you had) been previously blocked or was a subjet of any other action by the administrator who implemented action against the IP you are using now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I already responded to that, so now it's my turn: Do you or don't you claim that I made a rule-conforming change to manipulate El C into abusing his tools? If so, how? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No you did NOT, you answered, "Not before I clicked your link, no" How about clearing the concerns I have first? -GizzyCatBella🍁 12:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Read again, I'm sure you'll find it. Now back to your libel: Do you claim that I set a trap for El C by making a rule-conforming change to an article he never touched before today? If so, how? If not, what exactly do you claim? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I can't locate it, and I find it troubling that you are choosing NOT to address my concerns thoroughly and clearly. How much effort does it take to type "yes" or "not", huh? Even if you had to repeat yourself. I have no further questions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it much more troubling that you consistently libel another editor without even an attempt to justify your fantastic accusations. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

He also wrote: "I'm a very experienced editor". [32]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So I'll tell you what I find is problematic here without even going into the merit of the complaint itself yet. You admit being a very experienced editor, BUT you are acknowledging using the prior account(s), and you decline to disclose it. You don't see anything wrong with editing using multiple accounts and IPs. You decided on reporting an administrator who just recently had been experiencing disagreements on this very board. Okay?GizzyCatBella🍁 13:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• In case anybody is gauging consensus, I would not object to, and by now would be happy for, the IP to be indeffed for WP:DE, based on the edit-war over its disruptive edit, its lack of WP:HERE editing, and the already 35+ repetitive aggressive and disruptive posts and personal attacks on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like this issue has now had a thorough canvassing. Thought I'd add some longer views and suggest a way to move forward:

• The OP is blocked from editing one single article, where they made a series of very small edits that don't actually change the appearance of that page for readers. These were certainly unnecessary edits, they might (or might not) also have been disruptive editing. The question for the OP now is if they're actually asking for an unblock from that article to make some substantive edits to it. If so then that seems like a reasonable course.
• There's discussion on whether the block was involved and/or overreach. I don't personally think it was "involved," but there's other views. However what shouldn't be lost sight of is that this was a temporary partial block from one article following a series of (at best) unexplained and unnecessary edits to it. The admin concerned has said they've taken constructive criticism in this thread to heart and will in their words, "strive to do better." That also seems fine - doing more than that (ibans? blocks? Arbcom?) all seem like overkill. El_C has acknowledged the issue and criticism, and that's a proportionate response.
• There's discussion about the OP's other account(s), which is going nowhere as they won't reveal them.

I guess all of the above is a longwinded way of saying that a complaint has been made, it's been acknowledged, and criticisms here taken to heart. After that there's not a great deal more that needs doing. I'm happy to unblock the OP from this one article, provided they indicate they have substantive edits to make to it. After that, let's all call this a day and move on to more other things. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this thread should be closed. If the OP wants to be unblocked from Spitzer, we can give him WP:ROPE and close the thread. I think his repetitive attacks on this thread are evidence of a troll and returning troublemaker, and that he should be blocked. But if no admin wants to make that call right now, or within 24 hours (giving admins in all timezones a chance to review), then someone should close this thread, which is going nowhere except more abuse and PAs from the OP. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to award El C a mophandling barnstar. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• This criticism, that El C "massively abused" his position, shouldn't be given any more credence; it is disappointing that El C has been put through the wringer here including by some fellow admins. A half a dozen admins allow for this ridiculous trolling, which follows a measly little partial block, from an editor who should have been blocked two dozen edits ago. But it has been allowed to continue for so long that y'all implicitly permitted them to do it--that's enabling. Sorry El C. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update: for continued claims of "dehumanizing behavior", the editor is blocked. Those statements are not acceptable. Someone was asking them who they might have been in a previous life, and I can't answer that, but they are as disruptive as this one. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder whether people have misunderstood what the IP was doing. The unnecessary spaces were added in 2015 by an editor using AWB, which used to add spaces under headings. On 29 August, 84.132.144.123 removed one of the spaces. Perhaps thinking he was adding one, El C reverted. The IP shouldn't have been blocked for reverting, and shouldn't have been blocked by Drmies for saying he felt dehumanized by this discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  +1, what's going on here? Arkon (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, that's kind of rich, Sarah--here is the diff which obviously does NOT have the IP saying "they felt dehumanized by the discussion" or some nonsense like that. Weren't you supposed to, eh, discuss this with others, and maybe with me? You unblocked a troll, who got exactly what he wanted. Bravo. Let's spend another couple of hours discussing this. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the diff by 84.132 a line space was removed and four spaces were added within the '===' and '====' of subsection headings. We're talking about two different kinds of whitespace. One type was added, one was removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  That doesn't actually look like the same whitespace, but +1 regardless. If we blocked people for making minor edits that don't appreciably improve the page (or labeled doing so disruptive and subject to use of rollback), WP:4000 would look very different. This thread started with the IP under the false impression that there was some broader sanction than the minor one El C imposed (which, though I don't think it was necessary, also isn't a very big deal). The rest seemed a result of realizing, as so many do, that IPs are indeed treated worse than registered accounts at ANI. Framing that as "dehumanizing" is a little dramatic, but also sort of understandable. There are good reasons why we tend to be suspect of IPs (especially those who seem quite familiar with wiki processes), but I certainly can't fault anyone for being frustrated by that. How about reclosing this way: "The IP made an unnecessary edit, was reverted, and edit warred over it. As a result, they were given a very narrow, short block. Opinions of that block are divided but there's no consensus to overturn it. We're here because the IP misinterpreted that block as something more severe and things escalated unnecessarily. The broader block is lifted but the original very narrow block remains in place with a reminder not to edit war even if you think you're right." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'll unblock the IP with a suggestion that they not continue to post about this. The first block is hardly worth undoing, but I think it was perhaps the result of a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I intended to undo Drmies' block but leave the partial block in place, but in unblocking I see I've undone both. I'll leave a note for the IP that he should not edit that article for the next week. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin, pretty bold given there doesn't seem to be any consensus to unblock but it's done now. Personally think the IP's response to a partial block was verging on trolling (especially factoring they've admitted to being a longstanding editor). *shrug* Glen (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Normally I'd be right there with you, but I gotta say I'm not seeing consensus for the original partial block, much less the Drmies block. So I guess that's to say it's a double whammy of a premature closure of discussion above, and then a bad block all by one user. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, thanks for popping in every now and then and explaining to us how it's done. I undid my close for you, bowing to your wisdom, and I look forward to seeing you properly adjust our blocking policy--I assume you are going to write that blocks need community consensus, but unblocks do not. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  My long history of altering policy aside, appreciate the kind words. Arkon (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, it was a partial block from literally one article for a short period of time. In the broad scheme of 6 million+ other articles their reaction was suspiciously OTT. And Floquenbeam whilst I almost always agree with you on this occasion under the below scenario the only "winner" is BKFIP (or a similarly disruptive editor) who is right now rubbing their hands with glee at the disruption caused. Anyway, as I say all seems overblown now and nothing good can come of delving further. Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I guess I just disagree that being upset over any sort of block is some suspicious thing. Being continually referred to in the same vein as an apparently infamous LTA without...well anything backing it up that I can see, certainly wouldn't help. Who in that situation is making it overblown? Arkon (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, let's be fair here the LTA assertions came much much later after the thread blew up here so the blocks or initial allegations of wrongdoing weren't connected at all. Connecting their posts on this board with the LTA similarities that others noted much later just isn't fair. Glen (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Simply a response to your comment, which referred to such. Arkon (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  The IP's behavior is reminiscent of the Best Known For IP, who specializes in shrill denunciations of this type over small changes. Geolocation is of limited use, they travel extensively. I can't say for sure, but the style is similar. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, I mentioned it here over an hour before I unblocked. The partial block was an involved block, in my view. The IP was upset about that and brought it here. He shouldn't have been blocked again for doing that, and I can't see consensus for either block. Bear in mind that this is a discussion about white space in one article. If the IP had been adding or removing it all over the place, then a block might be okay, but changing it in one article should never had led to this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SarahSV, your "The IP has been unblocked", in the obviously involved close, is as deceptive as your earlier "he felt dehumanized by this discussion". You know "he" didn't feel dehumanized by this discussion; he accused a fellow admin of dehumanizing him. And "the IP has been unblocked" means you unblocked him--because the poor IP said he felt dehumanized by the discussion. Except that he didn't say that: he trolled us for hours, insulted a bunch of admins and editors, and made a personal attack that, apparently is OK. Next time you clamor about declining standards, or personal attacks. And no, you didn't post about my block, which is a breach of decorum, collegiality, and more importantly rules of engagement for administrators. And then you go and close this: it's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I unblocked and closed the discussion as an uninvolved admin. I did address your block, one hour before I undid it: "The IP shouldn't have been blocked for reverting, and shouldn't have been blocked by Drmies for saying he felt dehumanized by this discussion. SarahSV (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)"
      This was a minor spat about nothing, based on misunderstandings. It shouldn't have led to two blocks, so I undid them. And the person behind the IP did say—twice—that they felt dehumanized by one editor's responses. In unblocking and closing, I was trying to de-escalate, be fair to the person behind the IP, and be fair to El C by stressing the misunderstandings. Please let it be. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Haven’t really looked at much of the back and forth about this, but I agree with those above that this IP screams BKFIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to say this is BKFIP, but their behavior is functionally equivalent. Two problems usually arise regarding BKFIP's behavior (Not counting being community banned, which only applies if they actually are BKFIP), and they're on display here:
  1. They're often right, but get reverted for no real reason because they're an IP. I don't think the original edit was really an error, but it was certainly not disruptive. Both El C and the IP created disruption by edit warring over a bunch of spaces.
  2. Any time they are reverted/disagreed with/edit warred with, they immediately dial the outrage up to about 11. This creates additional disruption.

Add to this the possibility that this actualy is BKFIP. Add to this the questionable block by El C over what is either unimportant, or a content dispute. Add to this the fact that the community has historically been split over how to handle BKFIP and BKFIP's functional equivalents. Add to this a spate of partial blocks and full blocks and unblocks, all without consensus and all kind of questionable. I suggest reclosing this with a summary "Almost everyone involved in this handled it poorly (including those who think they handled it well), and almost every molehill here is not, in fact, a mountain." --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• • That's a fair summary. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well summarized. This is a perennial event, we need to handle it better, starting with not being baited into precipitate actions followed up by infighting - exactly what has happened in the past. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that summary. The issue is simple. The IP removed an unnecessary space. El C misunderstood, restored it, and for some reason saw himself there as an admin rather than an editor, so there was a confusion of roles. This led to the use of rollback and a partial block. The IP objected to being blocked by someone he saw as an editor, not an admin. El C, in future, if you arrive at an article as an admin, unless it's obvious please say so in an edit summary or on talk. That will help to avoid this kind of situation.
      Both El C and the IP shouldn't have reverted. But white space in one article is too minor an issue to lead to multiple blocks. Unblocking was the right thing to do. If anyone believes this is a long-term problem editor, please develop some evidence of that. Otherwise it's unfair to proceed as if that has been established. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I won't comment on blocks and unblocks, but why, Slim Virgin, won't you acknowledge that 84.132 also added unnecessary white space in the same edit. You only keep mentioning their removal of unnecessary white space. As explained above, addition and removal of unnecessary whitespace was done in the same edit. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Sluzzelin, I see only removal. I don't think it matters re: the block, so I'll reply in more detail on your talk page. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How many more reviews of El_C's admin actions do we need to have before they start reflecting on community views about the way they administrate? This is number 3 or 4 at a noticeboard in the last few weeks, notwithstanding several more on user talk pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: A high number of such reviews can just as easily indicate that they are one of the few to actually use the tools. El_C acted within the discretion afforded him by Wikipedia policy, and I invite you to self-submit your RfA. In any event, you are off topic and wrong venue; please don't do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that editors frequently complain about admin actions they feel are unfair, but when we have such a history where consensus has determined that the admin actions were not correct, and that there are at least 3 or 4 recent determinations, then there is more afoot. If I'd been reported that many times and my actions determined incorrect, I'd be sanctioned. We now have a history of problematic and reversed admin actions so I would expect some form of additional oversight. This is not off topic nor in the wrong venue - indeed is specifically where such discussions can occur. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 29 August 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 know this is closed, but I just woke up and logged in. I have to say I'm really disappointed by SV's unilateral swooping in, wheel-warring (or at least undoing two admins' blocks), and closing this thread, clearly without even understanding or discussing what was going on (and there's no "confusion" about what the IP was doing; he was adding spaces to 2 of the headers on an article that has 14 headers). If there's any admin who is abusing privileges, and not assessing either the situation or the consensus or the editor in question, it's her. This is really bad form, especially for a long-term admin. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No wheel-warring occurred. If you think admin abuse or wheel-warring happened ARBCOM is that way. Just let it die. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It wasn't wheel-warring but it was unilateral, un-discussed reversal of two respected admins' blocks, against consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

      Will someone please put a stop to this ridiculous timesink of a thread that refuses to stay closed? Very few people are going to come out of this looking good; let's not make it worse. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Almost no one comes out of AN or ANI looking good (except Drmies, of course). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 30 August 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.

Requested speedy moves

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 Template:Footer Olympic Champions - Artistic Gymnastics - Team Competition - Men/Year to Template:Footer Olympic Champions – Artistic Gymnastics – Team Competition – Men/Year, replacing the hyphens by dashes, as in related templates / articles. (Please ping me in case of questions.)--Hildeoc (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please move Template:Footer Olympic Champions - Artistic Gymnastics - Team Competition - Women/Year to Template:Footer Olympic Champions – Artistic Gymnastics – Team Competition – Women/Year, replacing the hyphens by dashes, as in related templates / articles. (Please ping me in case of questions.)--Hildeoc (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: What's the problem with WP:RM/TR? ST47 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

They probably got a double-namespace error which directed them to AN; that's what happened to me until I realized I just had to remove the "Template:" prefix. Page moves completed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:49, 30 August 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.

Experienced editor admitting to being a sock

hello, idk where the right place to post about this is, but a relatively experienced editor on this website (1.8k edits, hasnt edited in half a year though) is actually a prolific sockpuppeteer - first as User:Johnny Shiz and later on as User:Woshiyiweizhongguoren (these SPIs should be merged). If you want proof I have Discord DMs, just email me on here and I will send Yvzcvtp (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh i forgot to post the account. User:Anonymuss User Yvzcvtp (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Yvzcvtp, if you have off-wiki evidence of sock-puppetry, your should email the checkuser team through checkuser-en-wp (at) wikipedia.org (see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser) Ed talk! 14:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kinghowman's sock attack

As many of you notice, we are being attack by socks for three days in a row (the goal of the socks is either to open a SPI against ST47, or to report them at ANI). The socks get swiftly blocked, but before they make a coming out, they manage to make some damage. in particular, voting at AfD and even closing them. For example, just today a sock made this edit, which was not reverted and caaued (understandably) this reaction. Please be alert and may be spend a bit of time checking that the edits of the socks (typically one or two dozens per sock) have been reverted, and pages they created have been speedy deleted. Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up @Ymblanter. Is the IP behind the sock accounts blocked? Aasim 15:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not a CU, I can not do it. The answer I have received is that this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move (protected article)

Iran Civil Aviation Organization → Civil Aviation Organization (Iran)

See Talk:Iran Civil Aviation Organization#Requested move 10 August 2020 which has been open for more than 3 weeks. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add a "Masursky Lecture" subpage

Hello, I am working on the Harold Masursky page.

I would like to add a reference to the Masursky Lecture entry which directs readers to specific information about the Masursky Lecture.

The link:

https://www.planetary.org/articles/04041306-masursky-david-scott#:~:text=Every%20year%20at%20LPSC%2C%20there%20is%20a%20%22Masursky,astronauts%20to%20do%20field%20geology%20on%20the%20Moon.

Gives a good example of one of lectures.

As I work on the page, I will add more information, the goal, as regards the Masursky Lecture subpage will be to collect basic information on all of the lectures given.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmasursky (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Found another ref to the lectures, added it, and this one as well, to the basic HM article. Also added lecture series, with source, to Lunar and Planetary Science Conference.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also found and added even more info, with sources, to the article.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

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.

---

Wikipedia rollback Flyer22 Frozen is quick to revert edits he doesn't like and assume that all newcomers are trolls without underlying proof of this nasty assumption. He should have his rights revoked and receive a 1-week block for his conclusion-jumping and terrible attitude towards new users. ClarenceOfTheCreek (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Pay ClarenceOfTheCreek no mind unless you intend to block him as the sock that he is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: See this is exactly what I mean. You have such a terrible attitude towards new users and you're really low to assume that all of them are in bad faith. Your assumptive retorts only further give me a reason to report you here. ClarenceOfTheCreek (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if that were true, how is it that you know so much about me? Hmmm? How is it that you are such an experienced editor for a "newbie"? I'm done reverting your latest account for now. Others will revert them after this latest account of yours is blocked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And you know damn well that I'm not a he. Your harassing emails, etc. have been very clear about how you feel about me and other women. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment inclined to block OP based on edits and familiarity with Flyer and other indicators. Need another admin to review and confirm. Deepfriedokra 08:27, 2 September 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.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection at AfD

Is there any precedent for applying semi protection to AfD discussion? I hesitate to exclude good faith new users from contributing to such a discussion, but as the history of this discussion shows, it's been the subject of some rather tiresome disruption. Pinging Ymblanter, ST47, Nkon21 and power~enwiki who have been involved in clearing it up. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected a number of other AfDs in the last couple of days (this is related to the Kinghowman topic I started above), but they just move to other AfDs. I would keep this one unprotected, in this way we can block new socks before they create more disruption and finally show up at ANI asking for investigation of the users they do not like.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks - sorry, I'd missed that thread. OK, I'll leave it as is, thanks for filling me in. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Twinkle follows redirects when issuing block notices

Hello,

I think admins should be aware that - in Twinkle's default configuration - it will follow redirects when it issues notices to a user's talk page, including block notices. I reported this last May, and again this March, and there is another active discussion today. This is because at least one LTA is aware of this bug, and is harassing specific admins by creating sockpuppet accounts, and redirecting talk pages to their harassment target. When the sockpuppet receives a template message from a Twinkle user, that message is sent to the harassment target instead. According to the Twinkle devs, should probably peek at the talk page before blocking. So, please make sure that you do so, or encourage the Twinkle devs to fix this bug. Regards, ST47 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Argh! I just notified ST47 of speedy deletions of attack pages because User talk:ST47 (9-2) was redirecting to ST47. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1082. If you have access to private filters, please check and see if you can think of any ways that it might be bypassed. ST47 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, yep, I did that once this morning - apologies again ST47 - I'll try to bear that in mind and avoid repeating the mistake. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note and efforts - a new post to your fourth link indicates a fix is (now) forthcoming. For anyone targeted in this manner: you can request for abusively registered impersonation/harassing account names to be "hidden" in the context of a global lock. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Veteran's and Peoples Party - Misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf

The above editor is preventing accurate information from being edited on the VAPP Wikipage, even when the correct sources are linked as evidence. The party is a centrist political party as stated on their website in the UK with George Reid registered as the leader with the UK Electoral Commission. Even with the references and links being updated the editor Vif12vf continues to revert the update; this person classes the party as Right-Wing with no evidence to support such accusation and they are also a former member of Sinn Fein which is a conflict of interest and I believe is a vendetta against a party made up of former armed forces personnel.

<http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> this link is the latest registration of VAPP with UK EC.

<https://www.ukvpp.org/> this link is the official VAPP website and not the one currently seen on the wikipage <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_and_People%27s_Party>

Every attempt to talk and provide the correct evidence is met with ignorance and an immediate reversion to false information.

I wish this editor to be warned about proliferation of misinformation and have some integrity as an editor; if this can't be resolved then I move for the page to be deleted to prevent people from being misinformed and an unwarranted prejudice from being exhibited.Dingapottamuss (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• What relation have you got to the IP 2A02:C7F:B2BB:DF00:9CA1:2668:6B63:CF57? They also seem to have an issue with Sinn Fein, their edit-sunmmaries are very similar, and they're making the same edits as you. That's a very big coincidence. Meanwhile, neither you, nor the IP, nor Vif12vf have presented a single reliable third-party source saying what the party's political position is. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who that IP address belongs to and if they are making similar comments then maybe that's someone else spotting what I have. You say that none of us have provided sufficient 3rd party evidence so how is it that Right-Wing is allowed to remain? Surely it should read "a minor political party"? What I wish to add is that the current political climate in the UK has been disappointing with the same parties being the only options available. I searched for other parties and VAPP came up but everything I read about them was being contradicted by the Wikipage. I wanted to ensure that the correct information is available to others who may be looking for other UK parties as alternative to Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. This is why I created a Wiki account as I wanted to be able to make changes but not hide behind them; but also, I hoped to be given advice and assistance to make me a better user. But everytime I make an update and provide the 3rd party reference as proof it gets undone by the same user Vif12vf. I know there are better people here as the original creator was receptive to a discussion we had reference islamaphobia; an agreement was reached and it was removed from the page. However, if I too saw any evidence to prove otherwise I would edit it back in myself. I just want the truth to be available to people as Main Stream Media has degraded to delivering misinformation to the public. Dingapottamuss (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Your last sentence immediately shows that you may not be capable of editing neutrally here. Mainstream media sources (apart from those mentioned at WP:RSP such as the Daily Mail) are the ones that Wikipedia uses. Regardless, since there appear to be no WP:RS sources saying that VPP is either Centrist or Right-wing, the article should say neither. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have edited it so that it states a more neutral statement "a minor political party". I have the ability to edit objectively as I will only ever state something that can be backed up. In my profession I'm ISO 9001 auditor and so I know full well about establishing objective evidence before making statements otherwise it questions our professional integrity. Thank you for your input and guidance though it is much appreciated as I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editing world; I'm a stickler for alacrity, truth and factsDingapottamuss (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional response to the WP:RSP for the Daily Mail; clicking the link and reading the section on the Daily Mail indicates it as an unreliable source as are many of the MSM in that list so my last sentence means I'm more than suited to be an objective and neutral editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingapottamuss (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's OK, I was being careful there as one sign of an editor who may have an agenda is that they "distrust the mainstream media". Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Veillg1 continues to create machine translated articles without attribution

I came across Veillg1 (talk · contribs · logs) creating many pages that are machine translations of the same page from French Wikipedia. Over the years and most recently in Feb 2020, the user was advised that he should attribute machine translations using on talk pages using {{translated page}}. A quick review of his recently created pages has shown this has not happened. Furthermore, I find the machine translated pages very hard to understand. ---William Graham ^talk 04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham, Could you give some specific examples? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Here are some examples:

• Bec-Scie_River and fr:Rivière_Bec-Scie from August 12, 2020
• Maheu River and fr:Rivière Maheu from June 10, 2020
• Rivière de Chicago and fr:Rivière de Chicago from April 14, 2020

I note that none of them are tagged as machine translations. Also, I count approximately 500 such machine translation creations in article space in the last 6 months. William Graham ^talk

William Graham, Partial blocked from Article and Draft space; I'll be opening a contributor copyright investigation on them shortly. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham Concerning the translation messages, I do agree to place the translation message in each related article. It is not necessary to invest time for discussion about this issue. I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. If there is any future translation, I engage myself add the translation message.Gaétan Veillette 01:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veillg1 (talk • contribs)

Veillg1, yes, we must discuss this. Please answer this direct question. Are you using translation software, or are you translating manually based on your knowledge of both French and English? What is your technique? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Regarding your question, in the past, I designed the paragraphs in either English or French (mostly). The result of translations usually comes from a mixture of my personal translation work and using translation tools. Sometimes I use virtual dictionaries: Wiktionary, Reverso, sometimes directly through a general online search. I also use translation software for article segments if needed, mainly Reverso and Google translator. In the past, I also used Collins and Larousse.

Note that the French> English (or English> French) translations require adaptations, in particular the infoboxes, the way of presenting the references, the words in quotation marks, etc. Generally, long sentences are more difficult to translate. In short, human contribution is always required in order to validate the result. The way to achieve this is unique to everyone. The most important thing for WP is primarily the result of the exercise and not the process.

Note that I still consider this blockage to be unfair, exaggerated and counter-performing for WP. After thousands of writing articles in English, the bottom line is that there are few adjustments to the content of my writing in English articles; one can reasonably conclude in general that the result is well accepted.--Veillg1talk 04:17, Sept. 1st, 2020 (UTC)

I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. Probably it's because of things like this, where running the text of fr:Rivière Maheu through Google Translate outputs the text of Maheu River, making it clear the text was machine translated. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• CCI now filled out at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Veillg1. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Multi-day abuse, edit warring, homophobia

Hi - can someone please extended confirmed-protect the article Edward I of England? There is multi-day edit warring, including abusive statements against editors, and multiple homophobic statements - I would like to request an IP block as well for homophobic statements against two editors here. ɱ (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see the IP has been blocked, please watch for more IP edits, this may require article protection. ɱ (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The block covers the range used, so we should be good. I revdeleted the two offending edit summaries.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ɱ (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, Malleus Scrotum's worth a chuckle. EEng 19:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User:The C of E and DYK

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 C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The C of E is a prolific contributor to DYK. Mixed in with their often unobjectionable contributions are a number of hooks (for the non-regulars: DYK hooks are the sentences that appear on the main page section WP:DYK) that are inflammatory in one way or another. These include;

• Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here),
• Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date).
• Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here)
• Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9
• An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here);
• Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here)
• Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14.

For the record, I have no issues with someone writing about contentious topics and getting on the main page. The question is whether potentially offensive content is being used to educate the reader, or for shock value or to push a POV, per WP:GRATUITOUS. In my opinion, The C of E's proposals have often fallen short in this respect. Furthermore, when these hooks have been challenged, The C of E has been obdurate to a degree, refusing to modify their hooks in any way, and often attempting to unilaterlly reverse reviewer decisions (see the various nomination templates linked above). They have been cautioned for this repeatedly, but continue to ignore consensus in this respect; the latest such incident occurred this week [33]. Their tendency to nominate inflammatory hooks has not gone away either, despite a considerable number of editors, including many admins, expressing concerns about it (again, see discussions above). This is currently also being discussed at AE, but the scope of that article is limited to the Troubles. The links above show this is a wider problem that has consumed far too much community time. Opinion has historically been divided on how to approach this, so I'm offering multiple proposals. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Amended to a single proposal, per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Reviewers' veto

Any independent reviewer may veto hooks nominated by The C of E, without further opportunity for appeal. If a hook is vetoed, The C of E must offer a substantially different alternative, or have the nomination may be rejected.

• Support, as proposer. I think this is the minimum necessary to prevent the constant cycle of disruption at DYK as documented above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per Vanamonde. Agreed that this is a bare minimum, given the extensive history of disruption at DYK (some of which I've been dragged into first hand). More than enough rope has been given – I'm afraid we've reached the end of it. Open to escalating restrictions when necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the previous history of unrejecting rejected hooks despite reviewer consensus, this proposal makes sense. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, given the problems on The C of E's nomination pages, but more is needed. There should also be a restriction preventing The C of E from any editing of his own hooks in the Prep areas, given regular problems in that regard as well. I will be adding a second proposal to that effect below. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose that gives anyone who doesn't like me the chance to block any hook they don't like on a personal basis as opposed to if that hook actually follows DYK rules. No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion, this would be completely unfair on me because all it will take is one person to disregard the free and open concept we have on DYK, and it has the potential to be misused as censorship for any articles that don't meet someones personal taste. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion – that's incorrect. There is precedent for even more severe sanctions than what is being proposed here. That's the yardstick we should use when this behaviour inevitably continues. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a complete ban, not a ban on individual topics and freedom of choice on what I can nominate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My point stands – still more severe restrictions than what is being proposed here. It seems you're making a mountain out of a molehill. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So does mine, I feel this proposal would do nothing more than allow for censorship based on personal feelings rather than any issues with hooks that are made in full accordance with DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. You claimed (incorrectly) that "[n]o one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion". I just provided an example of an editor who did have their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in an even more severe fashion. I don't see how your point can still stand when its entire premise is wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"in this fashion". Doesn't mean I meant as a whole. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're just splitting hairs here – nice diversionary tactic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The C of E is a prolific contributor with almost 500 DYKs to his credit, the vast majority being unproblematic. His hooks are often chosen to startle and garner as many views as possible, and he is an enthusiastic contributor to April Fools day hook sets. I think this proposal is unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, in several instances the goal of "startling" has rubbed off several editors in a negative way, who have expressed concerns that his preferred "startling" hooks are doing more harm than good. While a full topic ban from DYK is extreme and probably unwarranted at this time given that The C of E has indeed proposed numerous uncontroversial hooks, given prior problematic behavior, it's clear that something needs to be done. Is it really worth it to get as many views as possible when the end result is much drama and offended feelings? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  You're assuming I'm doing it for a laugh, it's actually done mostly because of either the desire to get more eyes on the article to improve it or to feature a subject that likely would get overlooked because too many people go hand-wringing about it saying "ooh, we can't edit that, it's too controversial". Yet it feels like every time I explain what I am doing, people ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me, which is often exacerbated by inflammitory/loaded language used. I am grateful there are a handful of people who are willing to listen to me though. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  "[P]eople ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me" – your user page does openly state that you're a "Unionist" (i.e. biased towards one side of the Northern Ireland conflict). It also states you "believe in the re-establishment of the British Empire", believe that the "rightful" "owners" of Hong Kong are the British, and that you oppose marriage equality. If you don't want people to have a pre-conceived notion about you, then perhaps don't brazenly show off these views on your user page. If you insist, then accept the consequences that come with it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bordering on WP:NPA there I think. What's on my userpage is of no relevance to what I edit on. I have already shown time and again I have edited about subjects which conflict with those of my own views but often I find, people just don't want to hear about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all. I'm merely quoting off your user page, which is of utmost relevance as to how you edit articles and nominate DYK hooks (i.e. in violation of WP:NPOV). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Can you please explain then why you requested a July 11th date request for Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order, when the date is a known sectarian date where, to quote our article on Eleventh Night, Symbols of Irish nationalism/republicanism (such as the Irish tricolour), and symbols of Catholicism, are often burnt on the bonfires? Or why you were insistent on running a hook about Muhammad being called a "thief" in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination in spite of multiple editor objections, and only "begrudgingly" accepted a compromise hook when it was clear that there was no chance that the Muhammad hook was going to be allowed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  At the time, I saw it as no different as running a national flag or anthem on a national day as the Orange Order are most closely identified with the 12th. If you check the nomination, I did also give the option not to and I did propose the 1st to coincide with the Julian Calendar date which I figured would be less controversial. I did mention [[Eleventh Night] so the reviewer knew it was related to Orange Order commemorations but they thought it appropriate and they chose to promote it for that date. As for Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, the reason was because the hook was factual according the the article and sources. That's what I always base my hooks on, the DYK rules and not subjective opinions. Plus it is also to uphold the key principle of WP:NOTCENSORED which is often trampled on. The reason why objected for so long was a combination of the two, that the opinions were being made on personal views rather than factuality and that this mostly unknown hymn was being censored despite being a product of its time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The issue that has been mentioned here and elsewhere (including the AE discussion and at WT:DYK) isn't necessarily WP:NOTCENSORED but rather WP:GRATUITOUS. That is, if the "sensational" or "offensive" material serves an encyclopedic purpose, and consensus in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination was that the Muhammad hook did not. As mentioned at WP:GRATUITOUS, Wikipedia is not censored, but WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to post offensive or sensationalist material just for the sake of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, with respect, every bit of that is a non-sequitur. If most of his hooks are uncontroversial, they will be unaffected by this proposal. If hooks are made hooky through the inclusion of gratuitously offensive material, then they are going about garnering views in entirely the wrong way. And you've seen the absurd lengths to which he will go before agreeing to change a hook; how is that in any way productive? Or are you seriously arguing the hooks I've highlighted above were all fine? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: It's a slippery slope. Once you start making restrictions on somebody's activities, it's downhill all the way. My view is that most of the links you give are pretty innocuous. In several cases the hooks concerned were reviewed and promoted before falling victim to what I call the "shock, horror brigade". These people express their views in a forthright way, everyone else retreats behind the parapet and the hook is pulled. I see the C of E is now topic barred from Irish issues, and I think your proposal here will make him realise that he must toe the line in future. (There's an awful lot of mixed metaphors in this post!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, We've worked together successfully for a long time, so I will risk being blunt. There's a world of difference between controversial content presented to educate the reader, and controversial content presented purely for shock value. If that difference isn't obvious to you, I think you need to explore the history of these topics more carefully. I am no stranger to controversial content; I write about politics, and probably half my DYK hooks have been about potentially contentious material. I have never had an uninvolved admin tell me my hooks were inappropriate. Why? Because it's entirely possibly write about these topics in a way that prioritizes reader understanding over shock value; The C of E simply chooses not to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose In looking at the DYK's: Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here) This is actually reliably sourced, so no issue, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date). Again - these hooks are reliably sourced, and Wikipedia isn't Censored, so no issue here either. Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here) He's reporting what a reliable source said, not inserting his opinion. For the record I wouldn't have used that source, but it's reliable and Wikipedia's not censored. This is presented very much out of context and is now starting to look like Cherry picking. Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9 Yet again, reliably sourced. For the record, I'm a Christian and found this to be hilarious! Again, Wikipedia's not censored. An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here) He's calling the geographic feature by it's reliably sourced names. This is also taken out of context and looks like cherry picking and is starting to resemble the nom's taste not matching C of E's. Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here) Again, calling a geographic feature what it's reliably called in Ireland is perfectly ok, remember we're not censored over here Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14. 13 is a reliably sourced event. This is a non-issue. 14 is the only nomination without a reliable source (in the DYK Hook) that fails to show the source comparing themselves to JESUS. TL, DR: The nom is pulling the hooks out of context and making this issue look worse than what it is. I oppose any attempt to censor or remove the ability to appeal from C of E. The only thing I can support is a big aquatic animal be sent to the nom. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty

• Comment Note that WKWWK's argument is a duplicate to his other, below, which itself has been comprehensively destroyed by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker. ——Serial 15:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This could be a decent way forward to minimize disruption --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I remember Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. Anything that avoids similar problems is welcome. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as C of E's repeatedly arguing over hooks has become disruptive.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Will curb some of the main abuses noted in this thread and previously elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth clarifying the restriction wording to explicitly state whether third-party appeals of a veto of a hook are permitted. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  The intent is that they are not. A veto is a veto. The purpose of the restriction is to short-circuit the endless bickering that ensues when The C of E proposes a contentious hook and then absolutely refuses to amend it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  👍 Thanks, that was my guess but figured it was worth bringing up preemptively to head off potential disputes at the pass. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is really overkill. --evrik ^(talk) 02:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• More like really overdue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as this addresses the main issue raised in this whole thread and will avoid overly provocative hooks on sensitive topics.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This would solve the DYK problem with a minimum of bureaucracy. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Proposal: The C of E may not edit his own hooks in Prep

The C of E may not edit hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area. If a change is desired, The C of E can request it at WT:DYK.

• Support as proposer. Too many times, The C of E has made controversial edits to his own hooks in Prep, and caused major problems. Even when warned that a line had been crossed, it continued. If a change is important, it can be requested at the DYK talk page, and if it is reasonable and not controversial, another editor can make the change. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BlueMoonset. This should be common sense for anyone, but The C of E is the only user I'm aware of who has done so after a warning on a potentially contentious hook. He always has the option of asking for a change at ERRORS or WT:DYK, or asking for a hook to be pulled until any disagreement is resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per above. This behaviour has gone on for far too long. It's about time we put a stop to this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is already a discussion about making this a full DYK rule at WT:DYK. This discussion is redundant when the discussion should be going on there, rather than just singling out me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose In looking at the DYK's: Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here) This is actually reliably sourced, so no issue, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date). Again - these hooks are reliably sourced, and Wikipedia isn't Censored, so no issue here either. Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here) He's reporting what a reliable source said, not inserting his opinion. For the record I wouldn't have used that source, but it's reliable and Wikipedia's not censored. This is presented very much out of context and is now starting to look like Cherry picking. Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9 Yet again, reliably sourced. For the record, I'm a Christian and found this to be hilarious! Again, Wikipedia's not censored. An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here) He's calling the geographic feature by it's reliably sourced names. This is also taken out of context and looks like cherry picking and is starting to resemble the nom's taste not matching C of E's. Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here) Again, calling a geographic feature what it's reliably called in Ireland is perfectly ok, remember we're not censored over here Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14. 13 is a reliably sourced event. This is a non-issue. 14 is the only nomination without a reliable source (in the DYK Hook) that fails to show the source comparing themselves to JESUS. TL, DR: The nom is pulling the hooks out of context and making this issue look worse than what it is. I oppose any attempt to censor or remove the ability to appeal from C of E. The only thing I can support is a big aquatic animal be sent to the nom. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty

@Wekeepwhatwekill: This is an absolute non-argument. The existence of reliable source does make something a good idea. Recognising that we shouldn't throw the n-word around on our front page is not a question of "taste". – Joe (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill's arguments make little to no sense. At DYK, you are submitting words to other people for their review, revision, and rejection, complaining about censorship is absurd. As for the 'it's sourced' argument, that simplistic argument is rejected even on articles -- so more so, the Main Page. Most the sourced stuff in the world never gets to the main page, the main page is designed to weed out most the sourced stuff in the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Joe_Roe .....Unless the "N" word is actually the name of the place. Then, as long as a reliable source exists to prove that it's the correct name of that place, person or organization for example Nigger_(dog), Rock_N_Roll_Nigger, The_Nigger_of_the_'Narcissus', just to name a few. Alanscottwalker I totally agree that anything submitted to DYK, or really, anywhere in Wikipedia is subject to review, revision or rejection. That's not what I'm opposing. I'm opposing Vanamonde93's presenting this case to make it look like The_C_of_E is making bad nom after bad nom after bad nom. Only one of them have no source and thus are a bad nom, the rest are fine, and in fact, pique interest enough to get the reader to click on the link and read the article, which is the whole point of DYK's. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 16:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable. Really this should be strongly discouraged for most users. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's common sense not to do this but C of E has repeatedly done so and so there needs to be a formal restriction.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per OP --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This should be a rule for everyone. --evrik ^(talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This eliminates another way disruption could occur and minimizes wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban from DYK

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 C of E (talk · contribs) is prohibited from any form of participation in the Wikipedia:Did you know process.

• Support as proposer. See my comment in #General comments above: CofE's disruptive behaviour is too sustained and deliberately motivated for "bespoke" sanctions that still let him participate there. It is unfair to expect other volunteers to spend their time making sure he behaves. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is far too extreme. You are pointing out 15 cherry picked hooks out of 480+ DYKs (most of which have been explained both by me and @Wekeepwhatwekill:) as grounds to ban me completely. That is completely unfair and so off base to go for the nuclear option when I have already been punished enough I think. And with regards to the above, I do also get involved in the editathons that put DYK as a secondary factor when they are on. Please check my contributions on Awaken the Dragon, Women in Red and the British Isles destubathons. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC){{}}
• Strong support – per Joe Roe. Seems this is the only effective way of putting a stop to this disruptive behaviour, which has no sign of abating given The C of E's utter unwillingness to change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared to make an agreement to change if you really think it is that bad. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is, C of E, that people have been advising you as to changing your approach for some time; the fact that you are now willing to consider it when under duress suggests that you haven't been listening to what those others have been telling you. ——Serial 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • • • Is it not that what you were seeking for me to change my behaviour from now on, well I am saying I am willing to listen to what is being proposed and I am willing to change. Please, let me have the chance to prove it. I have already been punished, this is overkill. All I want is to be able to help improve the project but it just seems no matter what I say, no-one will listen. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am inclined to this because the argument made here again that C of E does so much, actually seems a serious root of the problem, as I discussed more fully above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC) That should read, "below." (in the comments section). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the various comments by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker above. The truth that Wikipedia is not censored is not an argument against good editorial judgment, which is sorely lacking in the cases described above. The main page should not be a venue to be deliberately and repeatedly provocative, and DYK should not be run using a clickbait mentality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but if and only if there is not consensus for the above any of the other proposals (reviewer veto, restriction from editing hooks in prep, and partial TBAN). The disruption is severe enough that something needs to be done about it. I think the combination of a reviewer veto, the inability to mess with hooks in prep, and a Troubles TBAN should take care of it, and so I would prefer trying those to a more severe sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Totally oppose Per all my reasons listed above. None of the sources were mis-represented. Vanamode93's argument is a bunch of cherry picked stuff to make it look like the C of E is creating bad DYK's, and he isn't. He's creating DYK's that actually make you want to click on them and read them and also introduce reliably sourced facts that weren't known before hand. Finally, this is being tried both at AE and here. AE's already ended their trial, close this prolonged case of one personal taste not suiting another's , it's not right to try someone on two fronts. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 16:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as second choice to partial topic ban proposed below. If these hooks (which are allegedly provocative in order to make people think and learn) covered various viewpoints, then I'd be opposing here. But they are all emphasising pro-Unionist, pro-Christian, homophobic, etc, positions. That we have an AE result of "indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" shows how obvious it is that C of E needs to be kept away from abusing DYK to emphasise their own political and religious positions - the AE result presumably fixes the NI issue, but not the rest. Whether, as some argue, the statements in the hooks are factual and sourced is not the issue, nor is censorship. The issue is POV-pushing and good editorial judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Modified, see underscore. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 15 out of 480+ and I am to be hung, drawn and quartered when it comes to DYK? How about my sports hooks? Or those about heraldry? Am I POV pushing in those too? I have already said: I do not write articles with the intent to push any POV, I write them to try to improve Wikipedia and get topics read about. I have already said above, I am prepared to change if given the opportunity. Please, let me try. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You could just be astonishingly clueless over proposing one-sided DYKs that support your political and religious POV (as clearly espoused on your user page). But, AGF notwithstanding, having read all of this and the AE report (where I saw a couple of shocking examples that really made me pause for breath), I do not believe that is the case. You *have* been abusing the Wikipedia front page (you know, the most high profile page we have) to push provocative hooks in support of your political and religious POV. The question now is not what's fairest to you, but what's best for the front page - and I think it will be better, on balance, without you. I could support an appeal against the topic ban in due course, but only if replaced by a more refined topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • What am I able to do to change your mind? You want me to have a change of tack on articles I nominate, fine I'll be prepared to go for that. The ones highlighted are a tiny tiny fraction of the successful 480+ I have written. So I can't be a complete rotten apple (no matter what people may think of me). All I ever wanted to do on here is improve the project. I love DYK and I don't know what to do without it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You don't need to change my mind, it will be consensus that decides it, not me. If enough people are convinced by your responses here, the proposal will not pass. Saying that, I did suggest a more refined topic ban, so I'll see if I can propose one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Really? This is complete overkill. The C of E has presented many uncontentious DYK entries. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No DYKs regarding religion and/or politics and we're good. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overkill. A complete topic ban isn't necessary for a majority unproblematic contributor to DYK entries. Other than a few incidents, all involving issues where C of E may have a bias towards certain views and cannot remain neutral, such as in religion and/or politics (especially of the UK, elsewhere usually unproblematic). Following the AE consensus, and this, I will only support this option if C of E cannot remain neutral in future DYK entries. Ed talk! 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I skimmed through CoE's talk page where you can find many/most of the DYK credits that CoE has accumulated. Many of COE's DYKs are non-controversial (lots of sports, trivia) and some of the more 'tabloid-esqu' ones (like cocklake) are meh. Given the topic ban at AE, and the majority of acceptable DYK contributions, I can't find justification for a blanket DYK ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A full topic ban sounds too much at this time given that The C of E has proposed hooks outside the problematic areas that were uncontroversial. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly how far do we intend to go with this pile-on? One sanction has just been imposed. Give it some time to work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• oppose too far without trying something lesser first — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disproportionate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, too broad.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:13, 2 September 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.

Proposal: partial topic ban from DYK

I propose an alternative to a full topic ban from DYK, and to recognize the large number of DYK hooks by User:The C of E that have not been problematic. User:The C of E is topic banned from all DYK activity relating to political and religious viewpoints expressed at their user page (as of this revision). So, essentially, no DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, LGBTQ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: Allow appeal for a softening of the ban in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So you propose I get punished even further than the WP:AE decision? Despite the fact that the majority of my hooks aside of sport or heraldry are on Christian hymns and British politics as that's an area that interests me (of which the majority had no objections). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not about punishment, and it's not about providing you with a platform to do whatever you're interested in - it's about protecting the Wikipedia front page from abuse. I've seen the damage that political and religious intolerance and bigotry can do, and reducing that is my priority here. I really don't care if you think it's harsh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • And are you trying to accuse me of doing those things? Because I can assure you, I most certainly do not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Any pushing of political or religious viewpoints, especially narrower ones, can contribute to it. Even stating a Christian belief as factual in Wikipedia's voice, for example, makes us look less tolerant and more bigoted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Far better idea than the complete ban from DYK, which is excessive. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - these are areas where it'll be hard for C of E to remain neutral. In other areas, C of E has been an unproblematic and constructive DYK writer. Ed talk! 20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Boing's proposal seems like a decent way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the topic ban from Ireland-related topics, that should help, but his behavior in certain other subjects (in particular politics and religion) has been very worrying. A partial topic ban from nominating such articles sounds like a decent compromise as opposed to a full ban, which sounds excessive at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support . I don't pay attention to DYK hooks but I am shocked to see from this discussion that the editor added content that referred to Oscar Wilde as a queer and a fag and to Mohammed as "that Arab thief." Something is very very wrong here. Such outrageous content should never have been added to the main page. It is enough for the editor to be indeffed or the entire DYK category to be abolished imo.Smeat75 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable alternative if there is no consensus for a full topic ban from DYK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Some of the examples given here, (i.e. "that Arab Thief", the N-word) I can see why people consider offensive. Others ("1946 Londonderry Borough Council election") I can't see what the issue is, but I'm not attune to irish politics, so maybe I'm just not hearing the dog whistle. My own experience was with The Lincoln Project, where I discovered that my use of "RINO" (as a direct quote) in a hook was offensive. Well, OK, I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what reviews are for, so no problem changing it. Which brings me to, this seems more like a problem with the reviewers than the submitter. If the reviewers are letting through stuff that shouldn't be allowed, there needs to be remedial training for the reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Apparently what happened is that the Londonderry election nomination (and another similar nomination a few years earlier) were requested to appear on 12th July or Twelfth Night, which admittedly I'm not very familiar with but is apparently a controversial date in Northern Ireland that is associated with Unionism. In addition, there was the use of the term "Londonderry" itself, which according to our article on the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is quite controversial and considered sectarian. Add to the fact that The C of E mentions being a Unionist on his user page, the behavior has led many editors at WT:DYK, whether fairly or unfairly, to believe that he is intentionally pushing a pro-Unionist viewpoint on at least some of his Ireland hooks. Given that he has now been topic-banned from Irish-related topics, this point may be moot anyway, but this comment is just to provide some context. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the politics of Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that CofE has been deliberately abusing the Wikipedia front page to promote his own sectarian position for quite some time. His user page makes it clear beyond doubt that he's a hardline Unionist (and it's not just the Unionist userbox itself), so there's no possibility that two separate pro-Unionist DYK nominations both requested for Orange Day were by coincidence. As for religion and LGBTQ, his user page (before he just removed most of the userboxes) made the strength of his beliefs on those subjects very clear (including that he's a Creationist and opposes same-sex marriage). And he's produced DYK's pushing Christianity as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs, so I think that's enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Derry issue is a lot more audible than a dog whistle. I can't help but think that part of the reason that C of E's hooks get through is because editors from outside Britain and Ireland are not picking up on how inflammatory what he does is. Sectarian provocation on The Twelfth has killed people. Even just his user page and signature: in many countries plastering your page with flags and ending every comment with the equivalent of "God Save the Queen!" might be seen as benign patriotism – in Britain it has more sinister undertones. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to imply there but I don't like it. I am trying to brush off all the kicks I'm getting over the last few days but that one I object to. I give you the assurance there are no "Sinister undertones" as you put it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the implication was obvious: when your user page (until yesterday) is a garish collection of nationalist symbols, expresses your support for far-right political parties and the "re-establishment of the British Empire", and you spend your time trying to get racist and homophobic slurs and sectarian dog whistles onto the main page – you look like a bigot. If that's not the message you're trying to send, then you need to seriously reconsider your image and approach here. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support. I like the spirit of this restriction, but I'm concerned it will be tricky to enforce because the scope is sometimes tricky to define, and will lead to more bickering of the sort we have already seen in the discussions linked above and on this page. As such I think BlueMoonset's and my proposals are still necessary, even if this passes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of the politics and religion with his desire to startle readers isn't ideal. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• weak oppose - acknowledging an issue, but uneasy with the idea of basing it on someone's user page expression, as much as I disagree with much of it. Also don't think the case has been made for all of these topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing this ban just because of the opinions expressed in those user boxes alone (though the totality of them screams intolerant right-wing nationalist to me), but because he's been abusing Wikipedia to promote them. That includes DYKs stating Christian beliefs as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs. I think that makes the case for those two topics, but obviously others can disagree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• [Non-admin vote] Support I had been aware for some time of The C of E's tendency to push 'politically incorrect' hooks onto the front page via DYK, but had given them the balance of the doubt as maybe trying to give DYK (and Wikipedia as a whole) a 'balance of flavours' (I'm sure I read somewhere that the WP editorship as a whole has a tendency to veer to the left, politically). However, the repeated attempts at inserting the Orange Day hooks make it clear that this is all about pushing their own beliefs, and it is logical to deduce that all their 'controversial' hooks are a pushing of their own views onto WP's main page (in a manner wholly unconcerned with WP's professed neutrality). Therefore something beyond the recent AE ruling is necessary. I will add that if this proposal passes and yet The C of E continues via other routes to push their views via DYK or other areas, I would support a WP:NOTHERE block, as per Boing's comment below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing. However, I think six months before an appeal is a mere slap on the wrist, given the extensive history of the disruptive behaviour that goes back half a decade. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems disproportionate based on the behaviour detailed above, most of which I would call provocative rather than disruptive and some of which is neither. Fly with a sledgehammer territory. Would possibly support if the topic ban were more narrowly construed, but those categories are too broad. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as contrary to our policy, WP:CENSOR, which states clearly that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." As C of E's submissions have been getting through the reviews and promotion process at DYK, this demonstrates that they are not completely beyond the pale.

The DYK process, by its nature, encourages new content to be presented in a provocative way and so there is a natural tension as editors strive to make the content interesting while it is not yet perfect. Editors are encouraged to be bold and so this requires some give and take as the overall consensus is established. Sanctioning is not helpful in this as it will tend to have a chilling effect and discourage participation.

For example, I recently objected to another DYK written by another editor and so caused it to be pulled from the mainpage. The matter is now being discussed on the article's talk page and so it goes. This is our normal editorial process. Right now, there's another DYK on the main page about an Irish politician. This was nominated by C of E and the hook has to do with Gaelic football. This doesn't seem especially exciting or controversial but then I'm not a follower of such games. It's all grist to our mill and we should keep it broad and open rather than narrow and intolerant.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Joe and Boing. My goodness, I know DYK had some problems (the rapid manner in which problematic hooks can end up on the main page being one of them) but I never would have guessed it was one specific editor deliberately attempting to push through divisive or offensive hooks. This needs to stop, because there's clearly no evidence that he'll do so on his own.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Support This is long overdue, as C of E has been made aware of his behavior many times and shown no willingness to change, repeatedly crying "WP:NOTCENSORED" (just like Andrew above me) when NOTCENSORED applies to content within articles, not to promoting content on the Main Page. A much more relevant guideline is WP:GRATUITOUS. Yes C of E is a prolific DYK contributor but there are many other editors with hundreds of DYKs to their name who have not had any of these repeated problems. I urge people who are unfamiliar with DYK to read Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_142#Using_the_"N"_word_multiple_times_in_a_hook and in particular Jayron32's comment This is a breeching experiment and no more, and as such, deserves no reason to be on the main page. Censorship doesn't come into play here, the intent is to get away with as much as one can, without regard for one's target audience. For that reason, it shouldn't be done. This is self-evidently "let's see how much we can get away with" which I think sums things up succinctly. C of E has a long history of doing this kind of thing, see the ANI thread where Iridescent remarked This editor has been playing this particular "let's see how many inflammatory terms I can slip onto the main page" game for the better part of a decade and the long list of examples here. My only concern this that C of E could try and game this restriction by arguing over whether a DYK really is political or religious, but with the total DYK ban looking unlikely to pass this is a reasonable compromise. (I also agree completely with Boing! in the comments section that C of E appears to be writing an article purely to see what DYK hook they can get out of it, which is entirely the wrong way around.)-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will curb the problematic DYKs without a full topic ban. 97198 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. As much as I have assumed good faith on this in the past, even including a hook regarding UUP politicians and Galeic football, which I passed for DYK and ran today but was later queried as possibly incendiary, the evidence does seem to have mounted that CofE is using WP:DYK as a WP:SOAPBOX for pushing particular points-of-view when it comes to religion and politics worldwide generally, not just concerning the UK and Northern Ireland. Boing's nomination above makes a lot of sense - we can keep CofE's contributions at DYK which do not reference politics or religion, but also restrict them from continuing the types of hooks which have invariably proven controversial. I also think this is separate and broader than the AE restriction, so this should still be closed with a definite decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This editor has long established a pattern of abusing the boundaries of WP:NOTCENSORED for the sole sake of being provocative and incendiary. It's time to stop. If this particular topic ban doesn't curb the problems, we can revisit something more restrictive in the future. --Jayron32 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I yield to your brilliant and eloquent argumentation.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Brevity is the soul of wit. --evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, not needed. He's already TBANed from troubles and the hook veto proposal is passing. This is just piling on sanctions from an alternate route.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• It actually is much needed. The TBan only covers the Troubles, and not religion and LGBTQ topics. The editor has a history of disruptive editing at DYK re the latter two topics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• 15 cherry picked hooks out of of 480+ is hardly what one could consider "disruptive". Besides, the majority of hymn and Christian articles I write are uncontroversial so I would suggest that if I am forced to get extra sanctions, that it not apply to Christian hymns at the least @Astral Leap:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• And you're the best judge as to whether you've been disruptive. Thankfully (and rightfully), the vast majority of the community here beg to differ. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I am already on trial at WP:AE, so it seems a little unfair that I have to fight to defend myself here as well as there. I feel these particular examples are just a handful of 14 cherry picked hooks from my almost 500 DYKs which the majority had no objection to. I do feel I am being victimised here for editing in controversial topic areas which others dare to touch and because I try to keep the proposed hooks in accordance with the DYK rules rather than any personal opinion on it. The hooks are sometimes controversial because it says in WP:DYKHOOK to make the hook catchy and likely to draw in attention. But I give you my assurance, I have no intent to create any POV hooks. The hooks I make, I try to make according to what the sources say.
  I do feel that people do not want to listen to me whenever I respond to their allegations. For example, if they want to paint me as someone pushing a Northern Irish unionist POV, I raise the fact I have put Gerry Mullan (politician), an Irish nationalist politician, on DYK which ran with a hook that was far more political than any of the above and yet there was absolutely no comment on that, nor has there been since when I have brought it up. Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Wikipedia which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Although I think you're now banned from the subject area, since you feel people aren't listening to you I'll make a quick comment. First, thank you for your work in expanding articles, including those of Northern Irish nationalist politicians where it was unproblematic.

  While I know very little about the subject area (for example I had no idea of what 12 July was until I read our article), to my mind there is no way "that Gerry Mullan was deselected by the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of the man he replaced, who had retired seven months earlier?" is anywhere near as problematic or controversial as some or possibly all of the other Irish related hooks linked in the opening statement. Noting that you specifically said 'far more political than any of the above', I won't comment on the specific claim of whether it was 'far more political' since it could be said that some of the issues aren't really politics or go beyond politics or whatever.

  But what you said makes me think you don't understand why some of your DYK proposals were so problematic, while your DYK headline for Gerry Mullan wasn't, and it has nothing to do with a bias in favour of Irish nationalism or against Irish unionism. And the fact you don't understand why the some or all of the examples highlighted above were highly questionable, but your Gerry Mulan DYK wasn't is part of why your editing is a problem. Again I know very little about the subject area, so I could be missing something about what makes the Gerry Mullan DYK so bad, but I strongly suspect the reason it didn't get pushback is because I'm not.

  Indeed reading the article and the DYK, while Gerry Mullan may be an Irish nationalist politician, I wouldn't say the DYK or article is something that is putting a positive spin on Irish nationalism. (To be clear, I'm not saying you did it to push a Irish unionist POV, simply that it's a very weird example.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's fair to the C of E to have this and the WP:AE discussion on at the same time. I will also say that I don't want the C of E banned from DYK either, I just want him to avoid certain contentious issues, which was the point of the AE filing in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  AE doesn't have the jurisdiction to deal with most of this, and cannot make him stop nominating contentious hooks. At no point has The C of E has expressed any willingness to adjust his approach either, so I find this necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  IF you take the trouble to read my comments on AE, you will notice I agreed to a proposal from BlackKite333. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For what it's worth, I agree. I'd prefer the AE to play out and, if there's a restriction then placed on The C of E, then it's an opportunity (and maybe a kick up the backside—he knows what I mean!) to clean up their act elsewhere at DYK. But a ban from DYK as a whole seems to over-egg the issue. ——Serial 21:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - @Vanamonde93: For the record, I have no personal memory of negative issues with The C of E. I didn't realize the full extent of how others feel. But when I suggested the disagreements be taken here to ANI, I guess I thought it would be more of something like a temporary restriction on nominations. The magnitude of what you are proposing - banning the editor entirely from DYK - this is something that needs WP:ARB. If you are going to ban somebody from a project, you need ARB to weigh in. I'm sorry you went to the trouble of spelling this out here. My apologies for directing you here. But ARB is where they ban users from projects, and other stiff actions. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I feel sometimes it is my duty to be the whipping boy of DYK, heavy is the burden of being me it seems with the way people have gone after me by citing 14 out of 480+ of my DYKs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Maile66, Serial Number 54129, and Black Kite: I guess I may have given the impression that all the proposals above were necessary; I don't believe that, and was only sketching out different options that have been mentioned. Since that's evidently a little convoluted, I will strike the other options for the moment. Maile66, for what it's worth, AN certainly has the jurisdiction to ban a user from DYK. I don't think it's necessary, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maile, I don't know where you got the idea that this board or the community at large acting here could not ban editors from project areas. We've had people blocked from GAN here, and DYK would work the same way: if there's a community consensus here that someone should not be allowed to participate in an area like GAN or DYK or FAC or a particular project, then that person has to stop participating there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Wherever and whatever you do about this, I would appreciate it if you could ask for diffs, not complaints something like this, which could be read as a quasi-personal attack on both The C of E and the reviewing of DYK editors. That one reads like someone who had been around DYK a bit, but does not really identify themselves or provide any diffs - in other words, no proof. It would seem you are suggesting serious problems, so please require diffs when the accusations are made. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I am baffled as to what you mean by that; why are you holding me responsible for a drive-by comment made by an IP? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: I am NOT holding you responsible for that. I am just using it as an example, urging you to request diffs when people state their case. That's all. In that particular case, the IP made accusations with nothing to back it up. And since that was an IP, nobody else can connect whatever prior incident they are referring to. For instance ... if I brought up something that I dealt with, even without a diff, people could go through my editing history and figure it out. But if there is no user name, and no diff, it's not helpful. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I think I've made the case clearly enough above. I'm not going to ask for diffs because I don't need any more, and any drive-by comments in this discussion will not be given any weight by the closing admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I find Vanamonde's proposal to be measured and tailored to stop the disruption. I am torn over if this should be in addition to the actions at AE or if we should watch and wait --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that the discussion on AE is already ongoing and that some form of restriction on Ireland-related topics appears likely to pass, it may be a good idea to wait until that concludes to see if any additional measures are necessary. The Ireland topics appear to be the most persistent area of concern thus far, so the what happens next could depend on the outcome of that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed the AE having found a consensus of administrators in favor of a TBAN and with knowledge that Johnuniq had also reached such a conclusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Accordingly then, shouldn't this be closed too? Otherwise I seem to be subject to double jeopardy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The AE closure addressed the topic of Northern Ireland which represents just 2 of the original complaint's 7 bullet points. Calling "double jeopardy" is a red herring. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• CofE's antics at DYK are the tip of the iceberg. Let's take this 2017 hook as an example. That a description of Oscar Wilde, probably the most famous British gay man to be persecuted for his sexuality, as a "queer" and "fag", made it on the front page is a dire enough indictment of DYK's lack of editorial oversight, and a typical example of CofE deliberately crafting the most provocative, 'politically incorrect' hook he can. But what is more concerning is what I and other editors found when we looked more closely at the article itself. The hook was cited in the first instance to two unreliable sources, an online tabloid and a blog. CofE bolstered this with citations to better sources, including some supposedly supporting the extraordinary claim that "fag" and "queer" are not in fact slurs and that the long-dead Wilde would have been "amused" by them. On closer inspection, all of these references evaporated. Several were citations to hard-to-access scholarly volumes or pages that were conveniently missing from Google Books previews. When asked, CofE wasn't able to provide quotations from these sources he apparently consulted. Comparing CofE's version as of the DYK to the rewritten version based on actual sources makes it abundantly clear that CofE cherry-picked dubious sources to place undue weight on the statue's offensive local nicknames, ignoring many reliable sources that discuss it as a work of art.

This kind of pernicious POV-pushing is deeply damaging, because it's so hard to detect: we rarely scrutinise articles closely enough to find it, especially when they come from a prolific and superficially "trusted" user like CofE. We could put it down to good-faith carelessness, except that CofE's entire Wikipedia persona is an in-your-face proclamation of right-wing, 'politically incorrect' British nationalism. It's simply not credible that his repeated abuse of DYK to put offensive material on the front page on dates carefully chosen for their inflammatory potential is just "tone deafness" or a benign attempt to startle and amuse; that almost every article he creates has some connection to English nationalism, Unionism, or contemporary right-wing talking points is a coincidence and nothing to do with the spattering of English nationalist, Unionist and right-wing userboxes on his user page; that his slapdash approach to sourcing just happens to skew our articles towards lurid tabloid conservatism. He's doing this on purpose, and that the project has enabled it for so long makes us look like fools.

The proposals so far don't go nearly far enough. A complete ban from DYK and removal of autoreviewer should be considered at a minimum, but I would indef as WP:NOTHERE and be done with it. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Joe Roe: You have the ability to implement a NOTHERE block yourself; and a TBAN isn't going to be implemented unless it's proposed. Why not do so? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Vanamonde93: I'm not comfortable imposing a block individually while a consensus is forming here, but I have just proposed a topic ban from DYK below. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  (The DYK topic ban section is now above, not below, as I've rearranged the sections. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC))

• I'm very disturbed by what User:Joe Roe has uncovered regarding the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture article, and that original version with homophobic slurs in the lead without proper sourcing is quite shocking. (Oh, and the fact that it made it to the front page highlights the incompetence of the DYK review process - I think there's a good case for consigning DYK itself to the trash.) I can see a case for a WP:NOTHERE block myself, but I think it would be controversial and would need a consensus (with more examples of POV-pushing). Anyway, I've revoked Autopatrolled as a minimum step. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "in the lead without proper sourcing" But leads in Wikipedia contain little to no sources, as they are supposed to offer a summary of the article's body. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The problem appears to be the overweening involvement at DYK From the above statements it appears DYK is like a honeytrap for CoE, with an unusual pattern of needing to be on the main-page constantly. As in many things on Wiki and off, if there is moderation things go fine, but if DYK is encouraging and indulging obsessiveness, such problems are bound to arise -- and for those who can't self-control, others are bound to step in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have revoked User:The C of E's Autopatrolled right. Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed. Also, I have moved this General comments section down from in between two of the proposals, for ease of navigation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, Thanks for doing that; it was a thought that hadn't occurred to me. Greater scrutiny of his articles is entirely a good thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be made perfectly clear that what is happening to The C of E is not specifically because of his personal political and religious beliefs. Indeed, conservative editors have long edited Wikipedia and many have done so without issues. Rather, what has gotten him into trouble is how he has given the impression to editors (whether justifiably or not) that he has used DYK to push these beliefs with the intent to offend or provoke groups that he does not agree with, or to garner more pageviews at the expense of certain groups or people. For the record, I believe that if a Democrat or Republican-supporting editor did something similar, they likely would have received a comparable on-Wiki response. For example, if an editor tried to push pointedly pro-or-anti-Biden or pro-or-anti-Trump hooks on DYK, these would (and should) also receive scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Good point, but Joe Roe's comment and Boing! said Zebedee's revocation of the autopatrolled right specifically cited these political views. Wikipedia has hundreds of political user templates and it would be quite absurd to consider anyone displaying one of them suspicious in the topic area. While ideological POV-pushing is a problem, and the oldest problem at that, Wikipedia is a volunteer project and as such, editors only edit topics they are interested in. It's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics. In my opinion, the core problem here is that DYK doesn't have enough volunteers to provide oversight before articles appear on the frontpage. And that is quite a serious problem itself. --Pudeo (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that it's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics, etc. But editors who write on controversial topics in which they express strong personal opinions (and, perhaps, even editors who write on controversial topics without expressing personal opinions) should have their articles open to review by others. That's especially true in cases where an editor has written openly biased provocative and poorly sourced content - I think that makes peer review of new articles essential. Oh, and yes, I agree we have a serious problem with front page oversight - some of these DYK approvals were woefully incompetent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  As you have explicitly stated above that you have banned CoE from DYK because of their political views, just who is allowed to edit in that region - the use of your admin powers to prohibit people editing because they are a self-admitted Unionist is a gross misuse of admin powers.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, The C of E has not yet been banned from DYK, whether fully or partially. Yes a topic ban has been proposed, but unless consensus approves the proposal (which appears likely in the case of the partial topic ban), he is still permitted to participate in the DYK process provided they do not involve Ireland-related topics (as he has now been topic banned by ArbCom from it). The only actions taken against him so far are a topic ban from Ireland-related topics (which was an enforcement of an ArbCom case) and the removal of his autopatrolled flag. Secondly, the proposals about him did not happen specifically because of his political and religious beliefs. These happened because, in the eyes of some editors, he was using DYK to push said beliefs in Wikipedia's voice with an apparent intent to offend those who espouse beliefs he does not agree with. For the record, if The C of E was instead a Labour-supporting Remainer who was promoting anti-Tory hooks, he would likely have received criticism as well. For the record, like what I already mentioned in the General Discussion section below, it isn't his beliefs that got him into trouble: it's his actions. For transparency, I will mention that in the past I thought that some of the articles he proposed for DYK which ended up not running should have been allowed, provided that a neutral and appropriate hook was proposed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions..." a direct quote - this is a direct statement that someone's ability to contribute has been restricted because of their political and religious views. Of course if the community thinks it is acceptable to discriminate against other editors because of their religious beliefs then it should say so - otherwise people in positions of responsibility shouldn't make statements that could be construed as saying that it is acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: CofE's ability to contribute hasn't changed. Boing pulled Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, a user right which confers "no additional technical abilities" and which less than 0.05% of active registered editors have. That is perfectly within their rights to do since granting or revoking the right is left solely to administrators' discretion. – Joe (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, The question isn't whether someone has strong views in an area, but whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense, as judged by uninvolved editors. This is what The C of E has consistently failed to do, and is why he has been sanctioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense" While Wikipedians are supposed to set their personal views aside when editing, political, religious, and ethnic topics often attract partisan editors. Heated arguments in talk pages are not unusual, even when there is no edit war. I am not familiar enough with User:The C of E to be certain whether his private views tend to color the articles which he/she edits. This would require more editors to check his/her contributions beside DYK nominations. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice bit of selective quoting there, Nigel Ish. How about my full sentence: "Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed"? I've highlighted the important conditional, as you seem to have completely missed it for some reason. Oh, and your claim that CoE's "ability to contribute has been restricted" by having the Autopatrolled right removed is utterly false. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I only just remembered your other accusation against me, Nigel Ish, that I "have explicitly stated above that [I] have banned CoE from DYK". I have done nothing of the sort, and don't have the power to do so even if I wanted to. I strongly suggest you actually read what people say before attacking it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reading back over what's been written here, I'm struck again by CoE's comment: "Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Wikipedia which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile". I think that sums up the problem. If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism (which appears to be what happened with Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture). That is exactly the wrong way round. Articles should be written to provide educational material, presented in a factual and NPOV (and maybe boring) style - not to provide maximum fun for their writers. And if there's then something in an article that would make an interesting DYK hook, fine. But what we have instead is similar to tabloid journalism, where the aim of the writing is to generate and support the headline. Is that a fundamental problem with DYK in general? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: The problem I see with DYK at this point is that some hooks that are divisive/POV, misleading or inflammatory can end up on the main page because the criteria for which a hook can be approved and promoted are very picayune, and attempts to object on the aforementioned issues are subsequently shot down as "this is not a policy-based reason, just move on". I feel a more holistic approach needs to be taken to reviewing DYK hooks instead of making it just two or three checkboxes to tick off.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I've always assumed that DYK was a deliberate attempt at gamification, to encourage people to write articles. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes you start with the hook and work backwards. That's not to say POV-pushing is acceptable, just that if you're going to run a game, it shouldn't be surprising if people play it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK can't release Wikipedia editors from their editorial obligations. In Wikipedia, gaming any of our processes is forbidden as disruptive. Also, that something can be gamed, does not mean gaming is its purpose or that you should game it. So, although 'highlight recent work' could be gamed, in Wikipedia it does not mean the purpose of it is a game. Many editors write new articles or improve articles, some decide whether to put them in DYK, but all editors are still expected to not game the system, and are still expected to exercise good editorial judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are interesting thoughts, folks, and I think between you you've probably got it just about right. I particularly like Alanscottwalker's point about still being expected to exercise good editorial judgement. I think that's especially true for the front page, but it looks like it's been cast aside too often in the pursuit of a juicy DYK. I think I'd go as far as to suggest DYK is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute on that issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a practising, rather hardline Muslim, I have to say, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong from Wikipedia's perspective with the DYK on Muhammad (ﷺ). Yes, I personally consider the language blasphemous (there, I said the dirty word)—but considering that Wikipedia has in the past not respected those sentiments per WP:NOTCENSORED, I fail to understand how this particular hook is suddenly an egregious transgression. It's worth noting that the comments were clearly attributed to the author of the hymn, so it's not true that they were made "in Wikipedia's voice", as Boing! said Zebedee described them earlier. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I did not describe the Muhammad one as being in Wikipedia's voice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad, I misremembered. Please accept my sincere apologies. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO, this whole thing would be solved if DYK had a rule that said that once something has gone to prep, only select people can make changes, or the changes have to be posted to DYK:Talk. Everything else can be dealt with at DYK. --evrik ^(talk) 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

Given the recent AE decision, this seems redundant and/or WP:GRAVEDANCING. I suggest this be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. When I suggested closing this, I thought that would be non-controversial. I can see that it was anything but. Carry on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. These proposals don't overlap with the AE decision – they are separate sanctions that concerning DYK specifically. I agree, this should be closed … in favour of the restrictions that have consensus to be implemented. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No - of the 14 matters listed at the top, only #s 1-4 would be covered by the AE decision. Leaving #s 5-14, not that I think all these are serious. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree wth Roy Smith. The timing was unhelpful, to say the least: AE has done its job, we should wait and see how it plays out. Specifically, how The Cof E responds and whether he adjusts his behavior: ten years block- and sanction-free, the TB may have been a shot across the bows. I'm no lover of their other political and social views, either, but—per WP:ROPE—both they and we deserve to see what they do with the rope remaining to them. ——Serial 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Then cast your !votes to oppose the sanctions proposed above, rather than trying to shut us down. This will be decided by consensus, whether you like it or not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If all you can do is cast aspersions, Boing, then you should probably go elsewhere: you're not not helping with that "trying to shut us down" bollocks. ——Serial 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Casting aspersions? How? By suggesting you want to close the AN thread with no action? Which you are?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You're excused. "Trying to shut us down" is childish and accusatory. ——Serial 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So what else does "Request to close" mean? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no aspersions here, just facts. You *are* trying to close down these discussions, by explicitly supporting the "Request to close" proposal. How else can your agreement with the person proposing the close be read? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is neither redundant nor gravedancing. The AE case said nothing about the DYK process specifically. This discussion is to examine DYK, covering more than those specific Northern Ireland topics. And the number of opinions building to what looks like fairly strong consensus makes it clear that a proposal to dismiss it is not approriate. We have active proposals with active participation, with a lot of support. You can't bypass the consensus process and shut us up just because you don't like it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The proposal to "partial topic ban from DYK" seems to have fairly broad support at the moment, and it wider than the AE decision, as it includes any potentially problematic hooks, including "religion" and suchlike. The evidence in this thread mentions a pejorative hook about Muhammed, which wouldn't likely be covered by the AE ban on "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", even broadly construed? I think that proposal should be formally closed with a decision, not abandoned as moot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A ridiculous request. The discussion by the arbitrators in the AE case specifically kicked the issue regarding DYK back to the community: ... if there has not been any disruption following them reaching awareness then I don't think AE can levy sanctions. The community, of course, could. Closing this as redundant would be a definitive supervote.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Since you've quoted me, let me note two things. 1. I am not an arbitrator just an uninvolved administrator. 2. Just to be clear, later discussion did clarify that there was disruption post-awareness which is why I closed in favor of the sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad. Struck that portion of my post. Apologies for the misattribution, Barkeep49.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW you did have the part right where I explicitly noted that the community can choose to go above and beyond the remit of AE. That is accurate (and something I continue to believe). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is consensus for the partial topic ban in addition to the AE sanction. Impose it and shut this megathread down. I know there are problems with The C of E's behavior, but this is quickly approaching 'pound of flesh' territory and it needs to be stopped. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's not redundant at all; I commented on the AE request, and opened this quite intentionally. As Boing and others have already noted, only a handful of the problematic behaviors would be addressed by the topic ban imposed at AE. Serial Number 54129, I appreciate the good faith you're willing to extend to The C of E, but the fact is he's had any number of shots across his bow, in the form of uninvolved admins at WT:DYK telling him he was way out of line. It's not made the slightest difference. Even when it was obvious that a TBAN would be enacted at AE, the only thing The C of E has been willing to commit to of his own accord is avoiding hooks involving Londonderry (which is now moot, since the TBAN) and even there there's not the slightest acknowledgement that he's done anything wrong. He's had years to mend his ways. A TBAN that doesn't address the entire locus of the problem isn't going to fix anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 1 September 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.

Core2012

• Core2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just increased the block of Core2012 to indefinite. The user has a long history of tendentious editing, and the latest response on their Talk page repudiates this, claiming that "There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term" (spoiler: it's not) - their edits include numerous examples of changing "undocumented" to "illegal". News organisations such as Associated Press, NBC and ABC ban the term "illegal immigrant" preferring "undocumented" due to the racist overtones (we do not, after all, talk about speeding motorists as "illegal drivers"). Regardless of the merits, the user's primary focus is on racially charged minor changes and this, to me, is clearly a problem, especially when viewed in the context of edits like removed mention of race. his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Overall, I believe this user is here for purposes other than collaborating to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:TE. In the month of may they slowly edit warred on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery over the inclusion of "African-American" in the lead because his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. They have a history of changing "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" and their most recent article edits are to do these changes on multiple articles. Their most recent article space edits use the edit summary Fixed typo for these edits and they also marked them as minor. These are not minor edits and this is not fixing a typographical error (or in other words fixing a spelling mistake). Their last edit makes me support a indef block instead of a block with a expiry, as they say I strongly disagree with your characterization of my edits. There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term. This shows they don't understand why they are blocked and will continue to make these edits after their block expires. A indef block is not necessarily forever, and a unblock request which addresses the reasons for the block / affirms they won't continue with these edits should do well in their favour. I would note that their recent edits are mostly the edits which have been disruptive, but there have been good edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am supportive of an indefinite block. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries

Hi there, I'm unable to move the MOS I wrote for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries due to it being named Wikipedia:Wikiproject Catalan-speaking countries. Could an administrator move it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheKaloo/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice? Thanks! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Not completely sure an admin was actually needed (you needed to select "Wikipedia:" as the namespace then just move it to "WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice" within that namespace, otherwise you'd have got a double Wikipedia: at the start, which may have been what was being blocked) but it's been moved either way! ~ mazca ^talk 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: ohhhhh, thats what double namespace means! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We're probably going to get a lot of these requests at AN. This is the second one in 2 days. Apparently, if someone tries to move a page that has a namespace prefix ("Wikipedia:" or "Template:") and simply cuts/pastes the without removing the namespace prefix, the software will try to move it to "Template:Template:" or "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:". The error message "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error. If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." Is there someone with the access who can update this message so it is less confusing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the actual error? ffs, just have it say "remove the second namespace and try again". AN shouldn't be the first port of call. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the error message is probably giving too much consideration to the 0.01% of times where the person was actually intending to make a Wikipedia:Wikipedia: page (which probably does need admin assistance) rather than the other 99.99% of the time where someone just did it slightly wrong and needs a friendly correction. ~ mazca ^talk 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Huge SPI backlog

With 10 current requests on WP:SPI as "Endorsed" by clerk for checkuser, and 19 requests where the status is "CU requested", I can say that this is the largest backlog on SPI that I have ever seen. Attention of more CUs and Clerks is needed on SPI. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like over the past few hours we've cut it down to 6 endorsed and 6 CU-requested. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I vote we have a sitenotice that says something like "Due to the backlog at SPI, we ask that you not engage in sockpuppetry for the month of September. Thank you for your cooperation." No way that could go wrong! GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Nathan James

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.

---

Dear Admins, I nominated this article for deletion last week and it remains ongoing after the 7 days and hasn't been relisted. At the moment, it looks like a non-consensus due to the way there are debates on whether or not the article has potential and/or enough reliable sources. Can this be looked into please? I'm happy to withdraw my nomination as I believe there is scope for this and will continue to look for sources. Personally, having re-rad the article there is enough to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:24, 3 September 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.

Sanity check at Shooting of Jacob Blake

Shooting of Jacob Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone familiar with the topic weigh in on my insistence that the warrants not (yet) be included? To me, it's a clear WP:BLPPRIVACY issue as no RS have stated that the warrants are the reason for the arrest. RS say explicitly that they don't know ([34]). Before I continue and potentially use tools, I thought I should check in with fellow admins and calibrate my current position wrt others' thoughts. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the topic, and the content of the article is understandable changes rapidly, but the current version mentions the word "warrant" only once, in the context of Blake being under an arrest warrant for drunk driving. This statement is sourced, the info is in the sources, and they look reliable to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin but I weighed in on the talk page since you asked. As I said there, I don't think "reason for the arrest" is the only reason why it's likely to be relevant, it seems to me it's almost definitely going to be discussed eventually, now that we know the police we informed there was an alert. But as I also said, this seems to me to be a case where it doesn't matter if we wait a few days while things clear up, the main reason I've refrained from commenting until now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, Buffaboy just did a good deed by reverting this edit and this one. User:Jd1schroeder was warned months ago about AP and BLP sanctions, but that doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. They also went on to post this, which I reverted--it's a forum post, but in the worst way. I warned them, and I hope that's enough--I'm holding back from the block button, but I am tempted. Maybe some of you can judge whether a topic ban is already warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the editor's history, both in conduct and in receiving warnings, I think a rather broad topic ban is in order, covering both American politics and current events in the United States of political significance generally. If there is no objection, I will inform them forthwith. BD2412 T 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban based on WP:ARBAP2 then? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The editor has been advised of the limitations governing edits in this area before. BD2412 T 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have informed them of the topic ban, of indefinite duration. I suppose we can revisit the question in six months, if they edit productively in other areas during that time. BD2412 T 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have the feeling that a WP:NOTHERE block may be in their future as well. They seem to be here to push a narrative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha, RickinBaltimore, you'll have to block all of "them", if there really is a "we". BTW right after I posted here I read this, so there certainly is a kind of "we". Yeah, I certainly appreciate the topic ban, but NOTHERE is more than applicable. That's the block I typically apply to "Wikipedia is a bunch of leftwing/rightwing/centerwing fascists/globalists/communists" editors. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, after a week-long hiatus, Jd1schroeder has resumed pushing a POV on Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C: please imposing 1RR for Shooting of Jacob Blake article and a editnotice regarding American politics sanctions because it was prone to distruptive editing by any users. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Declined, for now. I think the article is too active right now for 1RR to be immediately useful. El_C 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But 1RR needs to be important because there are indications that other users reverting any edits more than 1RR which can be constituted as vandalism for me. At least, please impose Use American English template in that article in order to prevent any users that changing spelling from American to British/Commonwealth spelling that be incorrect for US subject because I will prepared to add notice American English spelling in talk page. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought about reverts and vandalism. Yes, American English should be the order the day — I think that's already assumed, so no need to preempt (unless I'm missing something). El_C 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • @El C: Ok, thank you so much. I hope you can add American English notice in the article because I already added it on talk page. Best regards. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Sure, why not?  Done. El_C 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours and it does seem Blake's warrants will need to be mentioned. I am of the opinion there existence should be mentioned (eventually) but not necessarily their content. I'll back down on the rigidity of my stance as RS are now talking about them more. Now we have issues with Rittenhouse's victims' pasts as well. And Rittenhouse's hobbies and stuff are being brought up. BLP should be firmly enforced here, imo. Please keep an eye on this if you can spare the time. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW I should clarify when I said it doesn't matter since it's going to be resolved eventually, what I meant was I would encourage those arguing so hard for inclusion to just wait if it's necessary. While BLP issues apply in all directions so the exclusion of vital information even if it is negative to JB does actually have BLP implications (since it affects the police officers all of who are still alive), the inclusion of negative information does have more significant BLP implications. Therefore IMO it's fine to defer to concerns that the sourcing isn't yet sufficient if they are widely held and exclude the information until the sourcing is clearer cut. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jd1schroeder has been editing the talk page there in violation of the topic ban imposed by BD2412. I've closed their topics and reverted in some places, but I doubt that will mean anything.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given the user a 48 hour block for the obvious disregard of the topic ban. I was bordering on WP:NOTHERE, however I'm giving them one final length of rope here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification/Appeal

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.

---

With regard to the ban imposed upon me above. I am prepared to follow it. However I do have my concerns about this veto over my hooks because I feel it has the potential to be abused by people who don't like me or disagree with my hooks on a personal basis rather than a policy based reason. Henceforth, I would like to propose it be altered so that if anyone does wish to object to any of my hooks, they must provide a valid policy based reason (with a link to said policy) if they wish to exercise such a thing. Otherwise, I can see people just objecting without giving a reason or using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I mentioned to @Primefac: when he served me with the notice. I hope my proposal can be accepted in the interest of fairness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – the ink hasn't even dried on a proposal that garnered overwhelming consensus, and you're already trying to get that restriction overturned? Your words "I am prepared to follow it" ring hollow. Shows you haven't learned your lesson one bit and have no respect for WP:CONSENSUS. Shameful. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: No, no, no: you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to get it overturned, I am trying to get clarification of it and assurance that it won't get abused. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, I understand what you are saying all too well. Another example of cognitive dissonance: "I'm not trying to get it overturned", while you title this "Appeal". Fact of the matter is DYK hooks can already be rejected on the basis of a valid policy based reason (e.g. WP:NPOV). The reason why these restrictions were approved in the first place is because you consistently disregarded what reviewers said even after they rejected your hooks citing WP:NPOV, and went on to unilaterally re-introduce your rejected hook in the prep area. By watering down this restriction, you are essentially telling the community that you want to be treated like any other DYK contributor (who doesn't have your track record of disruptive behaviour). In other words, you want to escape punishment that has been justly imposed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm very sorry to say this, but the reason the restriction was implemented in the first place (and with strong consensus to do so) was because the rope had run out. Too many times had much drama occurred in nominations because of your insistence on hooks despite consensus against them, or reluctance to propose or accept compromise alternatives (with the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination being a notable example of this behavior). Plus, the proposed modification could render the restriction toothless. Ideally hook vetos should be done per a policy or guideline, but not accepting such a result is essentially just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you really wish for the restriction to be appealed or modified (which I suggest not do for at least six months per the minimum appeal time), I would highly suggest that it would be under the condition that you promise to no longer propose "controversial" hooks or give an acknowledgement of understanding as to how you got into this situation in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fair to treat this as a clarification request. I can see how these remedies could be abused in the manner CofE describes, and it's not obviously clear that the community intended for that to be the case, or that it's unwilling to consider modifications to those sanctions to prevent such abuse (but still address the underlying concerns). This clarification request may be premature, as nothing untoward has happened yet, but it doesn't appear unreasonable. WP:AGF still exists, folks. My tangential view is that the AN section failed to resolve the underlying issue, which is poor DYK scrutiny. That problematic DYKs end up on the frontpage is more a DYK administrative issue than it is a conduct issue. Anyway, I suppose that ship has sailed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, if you feel it is being abused, then come back with facts and data when that happens. Asking for clarification based on an abstract possibility puts the focus on you, whereas you want it to be on others who are causing you a problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: AGF goes both ways, and this "appeal" presumes that abuse will happen. The time for such an appeal is not now, but only if there should be bad-faith actors posting on The C of E's DYK nominations. The reason for the remedy to begin with was because of The C of E's intransigence regarding his hooks, and preemptively requiring reviewers to have to jump through extra hoops strikes me as highly inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because this modification would open the door for The C of E to argue why a stated objection doesn't meet whatever cited policy, and the arguing with every editor that objected to their hooks seemed to be a big part of the problem at DYK. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed – I see this appeal as nothing more than a ploy to WP:PLAYPOLICY and game the system. The reason why he demands that an objecting reviewer "must provide a valid policy based reason" is simply to play his favourite trump card (i.e. WP:NOTCENSORED) against our expected WP:GRATUITOUS. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would be a return to status quo.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bloom6132 - If people have objections you will need to work with them to find a solution, If that fails you may need to find something else to do here. I see no reason to alter it at this present time. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw Blimey, I had no idea such a simple request would cause so much heat. Accordingly then I withdraw my request for clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:26, 3 September 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.

Need an experienced closer for Yet Another Daily Mail 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.

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday? got archived without a clear answer. I unarchived it. Could an experienced closer please write up a closing summary and close it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. It didn't reach a really specific conclusion but I do get the utility of having an actual summary in these endless discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 19:46, 2 September 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.

Question about where to discuss a user

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 - I used to be an admin but that was years ago and I haven't bothered trying to get it reinstated. Anyway, I have a concern about a user who I think is a minor and I want to discuss it with admins/bureaucrats confidentially, avoiding altering that user or drawing attention. What's the best channel for this? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, Special:Emailuser/Oversight Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 3 September 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.

Block appeal

The user bradv🍁 blocked me from editing this article about Donald Trump’s election. I had been editing that article for almost a month without any complaint, until another editor reverted a bunch of my edits, including some that were there for weeks. I let the deletion occur for some, but for the ones that were there for weeks I reverted and asked to discuss on the talk page. I started discussing and it seemed to be going well, until the other editor continually started reverting my edits. I pointed to the fact that the edits, up until this point (and for the past few weeks) had WP:EDITCONSENSUS and that they should be discussed before deletion and asked the other editor to stop reverting to the prevent an edit war. That’s when this admin gives me a warning about edit warring. At this point, the other editor and I were using the talk page and neither of us were editing the article. That’s when this user blocks me from editing the article entirely. After that, the other editor stopped discussing, because they didn’t have to, and reverted my edits again. Once again, after the warning, I did not revert any edits. The edits are currently reverted. I won’t get into much detail about the content, but the article said that a group of people were anti Trump and this user didn’t think it was opposition. I was more than happy to discuss but now I can’t even edit the article and my edits are still reverted. Meanwhile, the other editor reverted my edit 4 times I believe and is not blocked. I agreed to come to consensus before adding this back, but the other user won’t use the talk page right now since I’m blocked (I guess). I have made a mass amount of contributions to this article most of which are still up there today. I even had a dispute with this user a while ago and tracked them down to apologize for a previous dispute where I was clearly wrong. I have been very friendly with this editor as well as to the other editors on the opposition page. Please look into this. Thank you.Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Background information for this appeal can be found at:

• Talk:List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign#Article is false
• User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#September 2020
• User talk:bradv#Edit war warning

The long and short of it is that Lima Bean Farmer seems to think their BLP violations can stay in the article simply because no one noticed for over a month. I'm happy to hear more opinions on how to handle this editor. – bradv🍁 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Considering you've been blocked 4 times in the 5 months you've been here, twice indefinitely, you should probably consider yourself lucky it wasn't an indef. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, this wasn’t a BLP violation since the article itself said that they were anti-Trump. I agreed to further discuss it on the talk page whether or not it should be included and to come to a consensus before it is or is not added back. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, if I may, I'd like to offer some unsolicited and not-particularly-informed advice: I think you mean well, and I think you make a compelling appeal in all but one way--time. Keep editing in good faith and let some water flow under the bridge. There are many other articles that could use your efforts. Let this one be, at least for the moment. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, where does this source say that Fred Upton opposes Trump's 2020 campaign? You added this claim a number of times, even after being told on the talk page that you were misrepresenting the source. And this is just one example – there are more listed on the talk page. – bradv🍁 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, it says that he has not thought about endorsing him. Maybe it isn’t opposition but there has not been a clear definition yet on opposition. If I agree not to add that one back without a new and reliable source that’s more clear, will you unblock me? Also Dumuzid, I appreciate your comments. Thank you for that. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, and I have not thought about changing your partial block to indefinite. That does not mean I oppose it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: You're partially blocked - You're lucky it wasn't an indef given your recent history. There are so many other articles on this project that you could constructively contribute to. You should do this, and then come back and appeal this partial block once you've got a few months of constructive, trouble-free editing under your belt. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

^{they/them | argue | contribs}, what in my recent history would lead to an indefinite block? I was blocked for on a copyright violation which was a misunderstanding. Also, wait months? Republicans are opposing trump now, not after the election. For those unfamiliar with the American election system, elections occur in the beginning of November so there’s only about two months left. I have added so many good additions to this page and even earned a barn star over the good edits I’ve made. Long story short, I’ve improved that page more than anyone else has (probably combined) so being blocked from it is completely ridiculous. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, I would respectfully suggest that you're saying here "I alone can fix it." I find that significant, though I will say that I don't believe such statements on Wikipedia or in life more generally. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk)

Dumuzid, I can see how that’s what might be perceived from above, so let me clarify. I know that I alone can not fix this article and frankly it doesn’t need much fixing at the moment. However, a few things need to occur. First, there needs to be a better definition of oppose, which the editors on that article are not willing to debate currently. Second, I was really researching some of these people (especially those who opposed him in 2016) and was able to find out if they oppose him. I spent so much time researching, and now it appears that only the Republicans who are very open about their opposition are being added (those currently in the New York Times, CNN, etc.). I have taken the extra step to do research into people. I also have added (and appropriately deleted) from the endorsement articles of both major candidates in the 2020 election. I don’t know what you mean when you say that you’ve heard this before. As for GeneralNotability, I’m not sure what your position is as you have not given much information, but the dog on your user page was a real stress reliever. If anyone would like to see my recent history. I am still productively editing, I just want to have the right to edit the article I’ve been working so hard on. Also, the other editor has still not been warned about edit warring so I feel this is more about content than actual edit warring Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need a clearer definition of "oppose". What we need is for you to understand that we'd need a source that clearly states that opposition. We *do not* make our own deductions based on what we think someone means by what they say. Your claim that "he has not thought about endorsing him" means he opposes is an example of making a deduction based on what you think he means when he says that - and that is forbidden by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policies. You need to get that into your head, and make it clear you understand and will follow it, if you want any chance of having your sanction removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that when you say "I have taken the extra step to do research into people", you need to be very cautious. Wikipedia does not allow the results of its editors' research to be used in articles. Someone else must have done the research and had it published in a reliable source before we can use it. That's why only those Republicans who are open about their opposition are being added - because Wikipedia requires a clear statement of someone's position on an issue before you can state that position in an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(EC) There are BLP concerns about your edits, which means edit warring concerns about the editor opposing you are reduced. Also User:Muboshgu is a very experienced editor so frankly WP:DTTR comes into play too. Anyway if you want to have any chance of editing that article or IMO any article involving living people, I think you need to demonstrate an understanding of WP:BLP. It's unacceptable that you think you can make original suppositions about someone based on their criticism, previous history or refusal to endorse. The criticism is particularly silly since most people who aren't sycophants have criticised a politician at times and this often includes their strong supporters. If you still don't understand maybe it will help to remember that the article is "List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". It's not "list of Republicans who refused to endorse the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". Nor is it "list of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign, so could oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, who knows?" And it's definitely not "list of Republicans who criticised Donald Trump, so there's a slight chance they oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign". Heck it's not even clear to me if you understand the difference between someone who has explicitly refused to endorse a candidate, and someone who hasn't endorsed a candidate (e.g. no comment). IMO until you understand all this, don't go near anything involving living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on our part or their part?

I was browsing Wikipedia and came across the Aphasia article. I just did a copyvio search and got [35] and [36]. Doing a search with a revision from 2013 I got [37]. It seems like someone either 1) added content from their website to Wikipedia without properly licensing it first or 2) copied from Wikipedia without providing sufficient attribution. Can an admin investigate further what is going on? This seems very fishy. Aasim 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems exists to investigate such cases. WilyD 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Although I note at least the first link is openly copying from Wikipedia, and not formatting the text to work on their site, so I think it's probably not a copyvio on our part there. WilyD 07:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• This definitely looks like they're copying us rather than the other way round. For a start your 2013 revision comes up as copying this, which is dated November 2014. [38] has a heading of "Aphasia - Wikipedia" halfway down the page. There are quite a few dodgy pages, often blogspot, which copy our content for some reason - I assume linkspam or SEO. Hut 8.5 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Appealing block

Hello! I was blocked from this talk page for the reason of edit warring. I didn’t even know you can edit war on a talk page. I understand why I was blocked from the page itself, also edit warring. While at the time I didn’t realize that reverting once is edit warring, I now realize how to prevent this from happening (use the talk page first). I am currently asking that my block on the talk page be removed. Since this is my second block from that page, I see why I need to take a bit of a break from it, but I was discussing the meaning of the article (I started an rfc) and also have added people who fit the criteria on the talk page, which still have not been added (they fit the criteria, I added sources, and even have added what information can be given when they’re added to to the page). Please remove this block. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally, the way to request an unblock would be to use the {{unblock}} template on your talk page, not posting here. But while we're here, I would decline the unblock request; based on your posts to the talk page, you still do not understand the scope of that article, so the block is still needed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Bradv, who imposed the block (which I extended), did say "You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems a little...harsh, given the whole Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community clause of the banning policy, although I guess I don't know how that clause interacts with partial blocks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lima Bean Farmer, your block from that talk page is not remotely for edit warring, and I have no idea where you got that from. I clearly explained the reason for extending your block to cover that page at User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#Thesaurus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, when I click on details to my block, it says that I’m blocked from both pages for edit warring. Please remove this block. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That is the original reason given by Bradv for your block from the article. I have explained clearly why I extended the block to cover the talk page too - but once again, you demonstrate an apparent inability to comprehend the simplest of things when they are painstakingly explained to you. I decline to lift the block. Also, I'm sorry to say so, but considering how talking to you is so much like talking to the wall, I'm really beginning to think you do not possess the competence to edit Wikipedia at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee, I have been blocked for promotional editing, unsourced editing, copyright violations, and now most recently edit warring. Each of these previous blocks I have improved myself on (I learned how to source edits, I learned what copyright was, I learned what an unacceptable username was) and plan to do the same with edit warring, since I was unfamiliar that one revert was considered edit warring so I will improve on that once my block expires (I believe in a week). However, I have expressed my opinion on this talk page and somehow have been blocked because I added my opinion and a link to a thesaurus which somehow violated Wikipedia:SYNTH. Expressing my opinion on the inclusion of a certain person is not a reason to block someone, in fact I started an rfc to discuss this article. I have commented on individual people too and have added people on the talk page which for some reason you refuse to add. I’ve been friendly with you since you blocked me so I’m not sure why you’re being so harsh on me. I know you think that for inclusion on this page, one must say “I am opposed to the Donald Trump 2020 campaign” but I think this is too harsh of a standard. Using the talk page to express my opinion was the only way I was able to do it and you have now blocked me from this. Once again, I ask you to please remove this block. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to user's talk page

Possible WP:SNOW closure?

Are any of these AFD's worth closing via WP:SNOW?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield Mall - clearly overwhelming consensus to keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri City Mall - article was substantially expanded during AFD and is currently at DYK
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Arcos Mall - same as above

The first one has been open two weeks, and the other two are at DYK, which is my main reasoning behind this. All three have pretty obvious consensus to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Especially the last two, I don't see this being a SNOW situation. The first one, maybe, but what's the rush? DKY won't grind to a halt if these stay open another few days and get closed normally. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The rush would seem to be that TPH is trying to make a point about a different thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TimothyBlue_mall_AFDs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I would have motioned to speedy keep regardless of the ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to hold all mall AfDs closes until discussions at AFD RFC and ANI are finished

There are currently two discussions regarding notability guidelines and shopping malls. One at AfD talk and one at ANI. The intent is to clarify what type of coverage is acceptable to establish notability. The outcomes of these discussions will impact the close decision because the issue with all these mall AfDs hang on this issue.

I propose holding all closures of mall AfDs until these discussions have concluded so the closers can look at the completed discussions for guidance on the close.

It will not hurt anything to keep the discussions open. However, if guidelines are clarified and they turn out to contradict the close rationale, there will be a question of what to do with the closed AfDs. There is no harm in holding the discussions open until the ANI and AFD RFC are closed. There is WP:NOHURRY.

Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  02:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The AfDs can continue as-is. If they're deleted and these discussions show that to be incorrect, WP:DRV is the solution. If they're not deleted, and that's shown to be incorrect, they can be re-submitted to AfD at a later time. Nothing about this requires us to leave these AfDs in limbo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: @Rhododendrites: TimothyBlue is still calling for a "hold" on mall AFDs to draw more attention to the RFC; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuen Mall and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center. These both look like they should be closed as "keep" since they're both a week past the relist and have a blatantly clear consensus. TimothyBlue is probably going to argue WP:NOHURRY, but the consensus is blatantly obvious on both of these AFDs and his call to keep them open longer makes zero sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: et al: ETA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigoland Mall (2nd nomination) too, same unnecessary argument, AFD open long enough past relist to warrant closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I trust whomever closes those discussions will be able to sort it out. People make all sorts of claims/requests in AfDs that may or may not have a basis in WP:PAG. I can't imagine a closer would be swayed by that, given how clearly the e.g. Methuen Mall AfD is being resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove rights

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 remove my "pending changes reviewer", "new page patroller", and "mass message sender" rights. I haven't used these in a while, and don't see myself putting them to use in the foreseeable future. I will request again, if needed. Thank you. KCVelaga (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 4 September 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.

Not understanding Twitter endorsements

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.

---

Jason S. Goldstein has repeatedly been warned by me and other editors to not add Twitter endorsements. I have shown them multiple policies where It says they shouldn’t be included. The user has continually added them back and argued that they should be left. Every time I’ve explained that they are not and showed the proper policy, they say they understand but then continue to add back Twitter endorsements anyway. They have been warned several times. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried asking Jason S. Goldstein to stop. If they continue, maybe report them again. I'm not sure if there's need for any action yet. I note you said "warned by me and other editors to not add Twitter endorsements" but I cannot see anyone else who has spoken to them on the matter. I only see RandomCanadian speaking to them on something else. I even looked at User talk:Pennsylvania2#More Twitter Endorsements. Of course, the fact no one else has spoken to them isn't your fault and editors shouldn't need multiple editors to tell them to stop, but different ways of explaining and/or hearing it from more than one editor can help. BTW, it's probably better to link to the guideline Wikipedia:Political endorsements rather than the essay WP:ENDORSEMENTS. While the essay does mention and link to the guideline, it may give additional clarity especially for new editors unfamiliar with navigating our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 4 September 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.

Problem trying to set up an Articles for deletion page

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.

---

Could an administrator help me, please? I have made a dreadful mess of trying to set up a page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Webb (medical physicist) . I realized that I had misread the instructions, but my efforts to recover the situation resulted in an even deeper hole. The reason for suggesting deletion is:

The subject of the article has made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted.

LynwoodF (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

LynwoodF, go to [39] and activate Twinkle. This will enable a menu that will allow you to automatically nominate Steve Webb (medical physicist) for deletion. However, with the reason provided above it is unlikely that the article will be deleted unless you can also show that the subject fails WP:N. That's because we seldom take into account the subject's wishes (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), and even then we'd need a record of the subject's wishes. Sandstein 10:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for your rapid response. I had heard of Twinkle, but I did not know what it did. LynwoodF (talk) 10:34, 6 September 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 violation

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.

---

this user appears to violate Wikipedia:Username policy. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, the proper place to report username violations is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The handy shortcut is WP:UAA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: What part? Promotional I guess? (Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign) Considering they only made one edit a week ago, this report probably just makes it worse. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, having the username of a notable person is against policy. Reporting them now lets them change their username before they continue any further editing. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:45, 6 September 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.

Lou Brock

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.

---

Lou Brock died today. As is usual, the DuckDuckGo search page for his name returns Wikipedia stats; his birth, death, height, etc.

For some reason you chose to show his height as 5-11" and then in parenthesis note that he was the same height as Carl Yazstemski.

This seems disrespectful of Brock because his height has no bearing on Yazstremski and vice versa.

Worse, there is no way (that I can see) to edit this non-germane "fact" out from the Brock summary. Very disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.48.43 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo is run by a by a different organization to Wikipedia and we have no control over the content they show. The article Lou Brock doesn't even mention a height, so this is likely from a different source. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:42, 7 September 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.

Ban appeal of Peterjack1

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.

---

Peterjack1 is banned from editing per WP:3X. The following is their appeal of the ban, which I am posting here as a courtesy only. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have consistently made productive and useful edits to Wikipedia. I am clearly here in good faith and I don’t believe my indefinite ban was ever just. The consequences for “edit warring” are too severe, and often I was protecting a page from vandals who would refuse to use a talk page and got punished for it. Edit warring should be punishable by being blocked from the specific page instead of the entire encyclopedia. 90% of my edits have been productive and mistakes from when I first started out over a year ago shouldn’t follow me forever. In addition, the way “Sockpuppetry” is addressed in unfair and authoritarian. A Sockpuppet shouldn’t be blocked just for that if they aren’t a vandal, a Sockpuppet should just get a longer sentence if they break another rule. For almost a year as Smith0124 I made constructive edits. I never used any alternate account to cause any harm. Second, an edit should be judged on its own merits and not by who made it. An edit that is constructive or that combats vandalism shouldn’t be reverted just because it was made by a “Sockpuppet”. That’s counterproductive and against Wikipedia’s philosophy. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. A random person on the internet is “vetted“ by other random people on the internet and given powers to stalk people and find out their location, internet provider, and more. That’s a gross violation of personal privacy and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s illegal. Point is, I’ve been a helpful to Wikipedia and I should be allowed to edit freely. I’ve tried my best the whole time to make good edits and to do the right thing. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to ANI thread that led to Oshwah blocking for one month. There are issues not dealt with in this unblock request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Technical point Only in the original SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1/Archive) was their checkuser confirmation. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is entirely correct. Although not documented in the SPI, there are at least 3 socks in August which seem to have been CU based, see my comment below. It's also possible that Special:Contributions/Smith0124 who is in the SPI in January but was inconclusive was in part based on CU data when eventually blocked in June. It's not important in any case. If the editor wants to propose greater restrictions on CU, they will need to stop socking, then make a successful unblock appeal, then make a proposal as a good standing member of the community. I don't think such a proposal has much chance of success. If the editor believes a CU violated policy, they are welcome to appeal to the appropriate parties. If the editor believes some law has been broken, they are welcome to contact an appropriate government agency although they will have to remain blocked while they navigate that no matter what, per WP:NLT. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC

Please see check user comment below regarding recent socking/block evasion. I will note that in my experience, unblock requests like this are sometimes preceded by blocking of the most current socks. User can always appeal to the ARBCOM or Meta:Ombuds commission, but they are not eligible for relief here. (I can see how they wish the checkusers would not check them). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Their recent activity was met with some very long blocks on the IP addresses they've been using, and you're probably right that that inspired them to appeal rather than create new accounts they won't be able to use anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore And this is something I find truly remarkable-- the inability to edit constructively with the sock puppets. The same pattern of behavior emerges and leads to blocking irrespective of the block evasion. If user had created new accounts while avoiding problems, they might have proceeded unimpeded. The most recent of these socks was blocked in August, lending credence to my speculation about sock blocking leading to unblock requests. User is not eligible to even think about unblocking till February 2021. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Only giving a longer sentence if you were evading a block, and not stopping the evasion, would be a bit pointless, don't you think? Alt accounts aren't an issue when unblocked if you meet the rules, which Peter did not. It's not really relevant to the appeal, but Peter may want to take a look at what information he gives to any website he visits, as opposed to the minimal CU data. It does look like the editor has never apologised for the initial issue (though they have for the socking) but the fact that it was 3X also suggests they're rather incapable of taking a hint. I'm not aware of the nature of their edits while socking, and if indeed "only" evading blocks rather than continuing to be damaging, there is hope for a future unblock, but not at this point Nosebagbear (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline Oh, good grief. @Peterjack1:, please. Reread the WP:GAB. This is a textbook example of what not to do. In short, it's all about the wrongness of the block, of the policies, of the community-- need I go on? In the future, please describe what you did wrong and how you will do things differently. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline I'd choose to use this as an example of how to NOT request an un-ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. Wow. I'm actually almost enthralled by how brazenly against WP:NOTTHEM this is. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. That's a spectacular example of a user who is not going to mesh well with the editing ethos of Wikipedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the veiled legal threat. That truly is brilliant. Practically ticked off all the boxes.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Decline in addition to the good points above about how terrible this request is, there are at least 3 socks in August, the most recent one being blocked under 2 weeks ago Special:Contributions/Monadnock20. (Also Special:Contributions/Springs24 and Special:Contributions/Tedm03.) Even with a perfect request, the community will have trouble believing you're going to stop socking with a record like that. As always wait at least 6 months and probably longer with zero socks if you want to have any chance. In the mean time, consider your behaviour so you can make a better appeal next time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Obvious decline. But "The rules I broke are all wrong" is ambitious, you have to give him that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Checkuser comment: some of you have sussed it out already but Peterjack1 is  Confirmed to Smith0124 (talk · contribs), Springs24 (talk · contribs), and Tedm03 (talk · contribs), the last two of which were actively editing only two weeks ago. They meet the threshold to be re-banned under WP:3X based on just their activity in the last three months, never mind all their past abuse of multiple accounts. We have to leave un-ban discussions open for 72 hours now but this is going to be an archetype of why WP:SNOW should be available to these requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify from WP:CBAN Regarding the 72 hour rule "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." (emphasis mine). In this case, that 24 hour rule would most certainly apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see that in there, but even that is more time than we owe this appeal, by about 23 and a half hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pile-on decline. Yawn. --Rschen7754 18:07, 8 September 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.

Creating a page

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 can't create a page, not even my own user page or my sandbox. Can you enable those for me? Also, it says I need to log in or create an account, but I would prefer not to. 2601:1C2:4E00:B89:D079:95A0:153D:FC43 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really an administrator issue, but you cannot directly create articles as an IP user, you will need to use Articles for creation to create article drafts. You can't create a user page unless you have an account. I would suggest that you ask questions at the Teahouse or Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 8 September 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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79

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.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, which means that you can only revert once every two days; furthermore, whenever you make a revert, you must discuss the issue on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Arglebargle79

The reason why the sanction was put on in the first place was that I reverted a blatant case of vandalism. I'm serious. Sometime in the late spring or early summer, someone decides to replace all the pictures of Joe Biden with a particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth.

So I replaced it with the longstanding original one, which was the official vice-presidential one that pretty much everyone uses outside Wikipedia. But then an administrator going by the moniker of @Tartan357 noticed what I was doing, replaced ALL the pictures of Biden throughout the 2020 election series with the objectionable one, and it kind of made me wretch. So I reverted the possible vandalism with an explanation of my personal reasons for doing what I did. Then Tartan57 decided that since he was an administrator he would go and get me banned for a good faith attempt to improve the article. I believe there's a record of it somewhere.

Since he's an administrator, others believed him over me, and I was forced to agree to leave the pictures alone without getting a consensus first. When He tried to get the disgusting picture on the infobox of the Democratic convention article I got consensus for a better picture for the convention page. Everything was hunky-dory, or so I thought.

Tartan57, who hadn't been there in a very long time, decided to replace the Biden picture that was already there in two charts, to the objectionable one. He knew that doing that would trigger me, and I guess that's why he did it. This is WP:vandalism as described in the rules and regs. I called him out on the talk page and reverted the pictures. He went whining to you guys... and here we are.

I know that I'm a bit of a pain. Anyone passionate about anything is a bit of a pain. I've gotten into fights and have been complained about. The Rocky de la Fuente thing in the Republican primaries, for example. He was on the ballot in more states than the two other Trump challengers and another person (also an administrator) wanted to censor out his results. It was very contentious.

But I'm passionate about Wikipedia and want it as good as it can be.

The sanctions are unwarranted and actually detrimental to Wikipedia's 2020 election series. How? Certain future events are scheduled and that schedule is written in stone. One of these is the upcoming Inauguration. Now in previous cycles, there was no real need for a major article at this stage. The committee had been formed and construction had begun. Not too interesting but notable enough that someone could find it. This time is different. The President has preemptively declared the election fraudulent, and this is notable as hell. Readers are interested in the controversy and what could happen. So what to do about it?

What I did, was to expand the inauguration article. All sorts of mischief could happen and it's our duty as Wikipedians to have an article that explains what might happen. This is what Wikipedia is for, after all.

People started improving the article. That's good. If people do that, I say, God love 'em! But then some jerk decided to remove pretty much everything we had done. I'd like to revert it back and keep on improving so that readers can have an overview of the controversy between now and November 4.

But I can't do that with the sanctions. So please remove them.

Also, when it comes to other subjects that I'm interested in, I rarely ever do any reversions. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio

Background: Arglebargle had already been reported to WP:ANEW for edit warring over Biden's photograph and had agreed not to change the photograph (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:Arglebargle79 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: User will refrain)). After that, he then changed the photograph once again on 25 June. On 18 August, he started edit warring again (1, 2, 3, and 4) and was reported to WP:ANEW.

At that point, I examined his edits and saw that, at the time, he had been engaged in more edit wars, including over trivial things. An example: 1, 2, 3 (or here 1, 2). Another edit war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The feeling I got was, basically, that Arglebargle was an editor who has a tendency to engage in edit wars and who tends to revert first and ask questions later, as evidenced, for instance, here, where he makes an edit, is reverted, reverts the other editor and, then, self-reverts.

I also noticed that he seems to have a tendency to "discuss" with other editors using edit summaries (1, 2 3, and 4). Of course, this, taken alone, is not enough to support any finding of disruption, but it's discouraged and contributes to the perception that this user has a tendency to engage in edit wars instead of resorting to WP:DR (which is the reason for the need to discuss reverts on the talk page).

In short, in the light of Arglebargle's editing style, I thought that the imposition of a 1RR was the best way to stop disruption, while, at the same time, allowing him to continue editing. Salvio 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Small update: I have just modified the wording of the sanction, to clarify that the sanction only applies to edits relating to post-1932 American politics. Salvio 09:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357

This appeal is laden with false statements. I am not an administrator. Furthermore, I have not been the only editor to oppose Arglebargle79's edit-warring. There has been a pretty strong reaction against it from the community. Arglebargle79 has shown no interest in working out any disputes through discussion, instead regularly resorting to warring, personal attacks and lies to preserve their edits. This appeal shows they have no intention of changing that behavior, and is representative of their angry and hyperbolic writing. That said, I do think some of their contributions have been constructive. The problem arises when there's a dispute, which is why I think a revert-based sanction is appropriate. I haven't seen evidence of disruption in areas outside of American politics. Salvio giuliano didn't specify that the sanction only applies to post-1932 politics of the United States per WP:AC/DS, and I think that clarification should be made in the log of sanctions. In their statement above, Arglebargle79 has essentially admitted seeking a removal of the sanctions so they can continue their edit-warring, and has not acknowledged any of the problems with their editing. I believe lifting the sanctions entirely would cause undue disruption. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arglebargle79

• I strongly suggest Arglebargle79 re-read WP:Vandalism. Whatever the merits of the Biden photo, it's clear that there was no vandalism involved. Making that suggestion seriously damages their credibility and makes it hard to trust anything else in their statement. It also means they've made a personal attack in their appeal, which is never a good start. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• First off, Tartan357 is not an admin. Second, they seem to want the sanctions removed to edit-war to restore terrible edits on 2021 United States presidential inauguration, such as "Should a large enough victory to convince most Republicans, take place" (unsourced) regarding a Biden inauguration, and a heading "How it isn't supposed to go: Conspiracy theories and Worst-case scenarios". Their additions are original research, and possibly BLP violations by insinuating that various people won't accept the election results. I would maintain the sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Taking a look at the actual photo of Biden that Arglebargle79 called a "particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth" is enlightening. Arglebargle79 is incorrect and is displaying really poor judgment. Calling use of this photo blatant vandalism is false. This situation is both very wrong and very strange. I recommend keeping the editing restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I have not examined this and so I offer no judgment, but just noting there's a related discussion at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Arglebargle79. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Arglebargle79

• As a procedural matter, I think Arglebargle has confused the appeal procedure on AN with the one on AE. This is quite understandable and not Arglebargle's fault, because the DS procedures have become so complicated. Someone might want to adjust the formatting in this section, although I wouldn't suggest we get overly hung up about it. On the substance of the appeal, I look forward to Salvio's statement. If the only edit-warring issue concerns a single disputed photograph, then an indefinite sitewide 1RR/48h restriction would strike me as an unusually severe sanction, but of course there may be more to the story. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with Hut 8.5 below) I thank Salvio giuliano for his detailed explanation above and for thought he put into selecting the sanction. Nil Einne also makes a valid point that I hope Arglebargle79 will take seriously. However, the discretionary sanction as imposed is problematic because it extends to all of Wikipedia, even though it was imposed under the American Politics discretionary sanctions and thus is only supposed to extend to that topic-area. In addition, while Arglebargle79 had received prior DS notifications, it doesn't seem he had an opportunity to comment on several of the edits Salvio has identified as problematic before the sanction was imposed, or even in his original appeal. As I said earlier, the discretionary sanctions procedures have become too complicated, and I might be comfortable overlooking these procedural issues if it I thought the sanction was clearly fair. But my opinion is that it is significantly harsher than necessary at this time, so I would replace the indefinite 1RR restriction with a clear and emphatic warning. (Important note to Arglebargle79: This is just one person's opinion, and I'm often outvoted. You are still required to abide by the sanction unless there is a consensus to overturn it and you are formally notified to that effect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Arglebargle79 could also profitably reread our content policies, and is at risk of being blocked or restricted if he doesn't follow them, but an anti-edit-warring sanction addresses a different issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• This does certainly look like disruptive editing to me. Arglebargle79 was reported to AN/EW for edit warring, avoided a block by promising not to do it again and then proceeded to do it again several times. Describing this as "a blatant case of vandalism" is silly hyperbole. Salvio's diffs suggest this is part of a pattern. There may be some scope for changing the sanction but I think Salvio was justified in imposing something. Incidentally the sanction would only apply to articles about post-1932 US politics because of the scope of the ArbCom case it was made under. Hut 8.5 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. The user's passion (and zeal?) lead to over enthusiastic reverts. 1RR in 48 hours is not overly arduous and prevents disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that, with the scope of the sanction having been clarified, there is a consensus to decline this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Closing. User:Arglebargle79's arbitration enforcement appeal of their 1RR/48 hour sanction is declined, per the comments above. Rules for appealing AE sanctions at the AN noticeboard are described at WP:AC/DS#appeals.notes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 9 September 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.

zscaler proxies

No such user raised a legitimate concern on my talk page. I have blocked Special:Contributions/165.225.192.0/18 because this is the zscaler proxy. NSU notes this has caused a moderate amount of collateral damage including to them. NSU states, "That range belongs to Zscaler which provides security and cloud services to several major companies, including, apparently, mine. This is a closed proxy that requires authentication and should not have been blocked." I placed this block because Wikipedia generally hard-blocks proxies, and zscaler is definitely a proxy. I've been following the lead of other administrators who have applied range blocks to other zscaler ip blocks. I've seen substantial anonymous vandalism from zscaler, too, though this can be dealt with via a soft block. I additionally have the concern that if we allow editing from zscaler, we may be implicitly endorsing their security and privacy stance (though this may be out of scope for any discussion)? So, my question: Based on current Wikipedia policies and best-practices, should we hard-block zscaler proxies? Should we soft-block zscaler proxies? --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a regular strong opponent of blocking Zscaler proxies for being proxies, and especially hardblocking them. They are used by really lots and lots of large corporations for security filtering, including plenty of 'Forbes 500' (or whatever) companies - large banks, drug companies, manufacturers. One only has to look at the contribs. I think even the FCC uses Zscaler. And the worst thing is that these are often highly educated, knowledgeable, good faith users. Zscaler is a reputable company, and this is a type of proxy I wouldn't call open. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, I'd agree that ZScaler probably aren't open proxies. There are only about 6 of these blocks if we want to undo them.

AmandaNP doesn't have great access to the internet right now, and has asked me to relay the following:

• I am definitely for an anon only block hence the coloweb block from the range i blocked. I think anything that obfuscates regardless of services should at least not allow account creation for the potential abuse of socks. Thats the whole reason i made the colo template SQL^{Query me!} 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I tend to think the idea of "anything that obfuscates" is a bit of a red herring, especially in modern times. When someone hops onto their mobile IP address, is that really indicating some sort of 'true' origin? We don't block all mobile addresses. When it comes to Zscaler, it basically acts like just another ISP proxy, most of which regularly 'obfuscate'. I've no objections if some admin thinks a range needs an anonblock - like any range there will always be some vandalism - but I do object to blocking Zscaler because it's a closed proxy. We shouldn't be using the {blocked proxy} template either, since it's not really something you can turn off. And like I said above, and the block of NSU demonstrates, I think hardblocking Zscaler is usually really detrimental to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Address or range	Blocking Admin	Block reason
104.129.196.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler
104.129.192.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	KrakatoaKatie	{{colocationwebhost}}: <!-- Zscaler -->
194.65.37.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler
185.46.212.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Ivanvector	Extremely spammy {{colocationwebhost}}, relaxing settings due to collateral impact <!-- Zscaler --> {{checkuserblock-wide}}
165.225.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	AmandaNP	{{colocationwebhost}}: <!-- ZScaler -->
165.225.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	Yamla	{{blocked proxy}}: zscaler

SQL^{Query me!} 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SQL, did you find that by searching the block log for zscaler? I have occasionally run in to proxy blocks that don't mention zscaler, but which clearly are when I do an IP lookup. But, I'll keep my eyes open for those as I patrol the unblock requests, once we come to a consensus. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yep. SQL^{Query me!} 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I should expand some. I suppose, my main rationale for not calling it an open proxy would be that it is generally unavoidable. It's more of an antivirus and content filtering service, and isn't intended to be used to mask one's actual ip or identity. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Although this is not the primary intention, it does serve to mask one's actual IP and is used by vandals to avoid blocks. What are your thoughts on soft-blocking (preventing people from editing unless they sign in with an account)? I believe you are opposed to hard-blocking, correct? --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yes, I think soft blocking is more appropriate in these instances. Unless there's abuse / etc that would warrant a hardblock. SQL^{Query me!} 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes zscaler a reputable company? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to turn into their PR person, I'd say it's the scale, depth, and quality of their services. I'd suggest browsing their website to read about some of their partnerships. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based only on the block log for 185.46.212.0/23 (because I don't have any other notes) I suppose I blocked that range because of one or a small number of users creating throwaway promotional SPAs in a short period of time, which would be why I would instruct ACC to disallow requests from the range, although I changed my mind four minutes later and converted to a softblock, so maybe the abuse was from unrelated anons. Was that someone running a spam operation from a legit Zscaler instance, or was one of their servers hacked and running an open proxy? I don't know, I guess it doesn't really matter. FWIW I usually do hardblock open proxies, but I only ever come across them when investigating reports of abuse, and only decide on block settings after checking for collateral and any good-faith accounts that need IPBE. On an abusive proxy I usually don't find any. If the proposal is to immediately lift all Zscaler blocks, I disagree (at least this one is not blocked just because it's a Zscaler range), but if we want to suggest that Zscaler ranges should only be softblocked and covert any current hardblocks, I'd go along with that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just popping in to note that I did not place the original block on the range above – I changed it to a soft block after (I think) someone emailed Arbcom. I don't think these ranges should be hard blocked, but that particular range has a lot of anon vandalism and nonsense, and at least some Zscaler ranges are definitely being used for disruption. The soft blocks need to stay. Katie^talk 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• As the "original poster" I don't have much to add. Do we have a consensus to soft-block only those ranges? If so, someone please enact it. I'm able to post today only because I had to restart my computer and got assigned an unblocked Zscaler address - I have no control whatsoever over the matter, and presumably most other users.
  By the way, how come that https://www.whatismyip.com/ shows my "true" IP address and geolocation, while e.g. https://tools.keycdn.com/geo as well as, apparently, Wikipedia, display the Zscaler one? No such user (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is an X-Forwarded-For situation? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have a pretty clear consensus in this thread that zscaler proxies should be soft-blocked but should not be hard-blocked. That is, the blocks should not affect editors in good standing. On that basis, I'm going to modify the blocks identified in this thread so they are soft-blocks, and will search for other blocks on zscaler. @No such user: if you are hit by zscaler blocks again, please ping me and I'll take care of it, or refer back to this thread when posting your unblock request. Sorry this has caused you problems! I strongly believe this discussion can now be closed. Thanks, everyone. --Yamla (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion backlog

There is a pretty severe backlog at WP:AFD. Discussions dating all the way back to the 23rd are still open and awaiting closure. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal "100th anniversary of the Azerbaijani police" looks like a keep, but the rest from the 23rd and 24th appear to be no consensus.

Also, while unrelated, Hypnotic Illusions has been sitting in CSD limbo for over 24 hours and should be nuked per A9. This one puzzles me more as there currently isn't a speedy backlog. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a user page

I've blocked Rancidhairyacssunt for a username violation. Are there any grounds for deleting their user page or removing the image there? Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are grounds. I've removed the image. You probably don't want to look. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd already seen it. No need for that sort of image except in encyclopedic useage, which that wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I'll take it under advisement and not look but couldn't you just G3 it? Glen (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glen: I wasn't sure what it came under. None of the U categories seemed to fit. Which is why I asked here. The image has gone now, so there's nothing to see any more. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, just for future reference, the general categories (e.g. G3) can be used anywhere (subject to some specific exclusions), including user pages - that would have been a pretty uncontroversial vandalism G3 IMHO. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

When you see something like that, I'd say that best practice is to delete everything and ask a CU to look for sleepers. It's usually an LTA vandal. Misogynistic usernames, especially ones that reference women's reproductive system as disgusting or unclean, are usually Architect 134. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. That'll teach him to thank me for an edit to a hidden template made for my own benefit. Not the sort of thing one would expect (or need) to be thanked for. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding redirect request on Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement

There is a redirect request in AfC, on Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement. But the Unicode blocks are create protected and restricted to admins: [40]. Requesting admin review on whether they are allowed to be created or not.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist restricts creation of titles containing them but MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist allows them as single characters. In the request some of these are combined with a circle ◌ but I don't know if that is intended; it is not in the existing redirect mentioned there, or in the first requested redirect. Peter James (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for permission to use files

I was blocked on April 2020 during six days from editing of non-free content policy violations. I was unblocked on 26 April 2020 with the condition of not using the files until I ask permission here. all about my blocking and unblocking is here. I ask for permission to be able to use the files on wikipedia again. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Faycal.09, please convince us that the restriction is not longer necessary. Sandstein 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The mistake I made in summary, is that I was going into an edit war with an admin bot. It is true that I warned the administrator but a little late. I understood my mistake and that's the reason why I was unblocked on the sixth day on April 2020 with conditions. Since April I have respected this condition. I contribute since 2009 and I have always tried to be exemplary on Wikipedia, I also uploaded a lot of files without problems. I wish to continue like this. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

An admin bot? You warned them? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would decline this request. You were not blocked for an "edit war with an admin bot", but for non-free content policy violations. Because you do not address this in your request, and do not convince me that you now understand the non-free content policy, I don't think that we can lift these restrictions at this time. Sandstein 08:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, CaptainEek, No I warned an admin, not the bot. I just gave a summary to explain the problem to you. I gave the detailed link there before, in my request here, so that you understand the problem. And of caurse the probleme was because the non-free content policy violations. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I warned the admin here. And I explained about my mistakes, what I do and what I will not do here. Sorry for my english who is not very good. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't just lift topic bans because people ask. You will need to show that the ban is no longer necessary because you understand what the problem was, and won't do it again. While not 100% relevant, you might wish to read the guide to appealing blocks for a good idea of how we want unblock/unban requests to be made. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also all the discussions in April are stale so I suggest you write a new reasoning here if you'd like an unban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, what about my mistake, I violated Wikipedia rules, I made a mistake by adding file fixed by a bot in draft pages and reverting this file too, I did not contact admin on first.

Uploading or using files to wikipedia is not an easy thing, laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content must be respected. We must favorising the free content post and good use of non-free content, respecting criteria of fair use. We must respect the ten criterias used in Policy chapter. We must be informed of files that should be kept or deleted as it's explained in Enforcement chapter. All this of caurse is mentionned in Guideline examples chapter.

On April, it was the first time when I was blocked, my wish is to be the last one. My apologies for all that. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I unintentionally violated Wikipedia rules. It's normal that I will not repeat this mistake and I will respect the laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content, as what always do before this incident. My apologies for my act.

I must not put files fixed by a bot in draft pages, and if a bot fixes any file, I must contact adminn not revert acts of bot. What about the laws of Wikipedia:Non-free content, As I always do, I must respect the content by favorising the free content post and good use of non-free content, respecting criteria of fair use. To edit files I must respect the ten criterias used in Policy chapter, about no free equivalent, respect for commercial opportunities, minimal usage ...etc. And of caurse I understand files that should be kept or deleted as it's explained in Enforcement chapter. And finaly what about posting or creating files, I must add appropriate license and add link to proove, only if I'm a creator of the file and I must explain what about file in Description. All this is explained in Guideline examples chapter. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:

• 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Hijiri88 unblock 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.

---

A discussion is taking place at User talk:Hijiri88#Unblock discussion as to whether to unblock Hijiri88. Further community response is requested there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Deepfriedokra: wants all the primary discussion in one place, which is fine, but this is a meta-query. Is this getting community agreement in the sense that a CBAN would need it, or is it more like a "extra eyes wanted"? Are the two one and the same in unblock discussions? If the editor is not currently CBANNED, would a turned down unblock request now implement one, as would normally be the case? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion was moved to talk page

Oppose I have been at ANI three times with this editor and my worst experiences on the project have been with Hijiri88. I even have an informal IBAN that Floquenbeam initiated because of the friction between us (Hijiri88 violated it almost straight away and then caught a 7 day block which lasted less than a day after an apology) Here is is promise to stay away from any reference to me which he later violated by using a string of terrible PAs to reference me. Reyk is always first to defend Hijiri88, and even levels his own PAs in defense. I could link to the many times the editor followed me, or typed harsh words about me, but this unblock request is about Hijiri88 wanting to turn over a new leaf. I think the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and so I will attempt to go through previous attempts by administrators and community to get Hijiri88 to work collegially on the project. Hijiri88 claims to have reflected and turned over a new leaf, but a big question we need to ask is why none of his previous sanctions caused him to do that. Apart from the 12 blocks on his block log, he's also needed six IBANs with other users (Tristan Noir, Catflap08, TH1980, John Carter, Darkknight2149, and Dream Focus), and an entire Arbcom case centering around his behavior that resulted in a topic ban and 1RR restriction.[41] You'd be hard-pressed to find another Wikipedia user who has needed as many IBANs as Hijiri88, but he hardly takes responsibility for them. These were all two-way IBANs imposed due to poor behavior on both sides, but he still falsely insists that they "were put in place at my request to protect me from one-way hounding" or "were imposed under very questionable circumstances". One of the reasons he is indefinitely blocked right now is for violating an IBAN on his talk page while already indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, and yet in his unblock request he doesn't even mention his IBAN violation or apologize for it or explain in any way why he won't violate his IBANs again. His last IBAN violation was extremely blatant, and yet he had already denied even being aware that it was a violation.[42] Robert McClenon asked the question in 2019 about whether Hijiri88 "got off easy" at Arbcom, and I think there's evidence that he did. Hijiri88 got off his Arbcom-imposed topic ban because he said "I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats", but then denied having made the very same threat he had apologized for.[43] He has repeatedly gone back on his earlier repentance, later stating that Arbcom case occurred because another user "managed to convince nine members of ArbCom that I should be TBANned for having let him get under my skin" or that "ArbCom really dropped the ball". There is good evidence to suggest that Hijiri88 has been insincere in his unblock requests where he claims to have reflected on his poor behavior. For example, when Hijiri88 was blocked in 2018 he claimed that he was blocked due to a simple miscommunication, but Boing! said Zebedee pointed out that that was a false statement.[44] Hijiri88 withdrew that claim in a subsequent unblock request, so Boing! said Zebedee unblocked him, but less than a week later, he was again claiming that he was blocked only due to a miscommunication (plus again denying the validity of his previous blocks and IBANs).[45] Is Hijiri88 being sincere this time about having reflected on his conduct? I have my doubts. On his talk page, he still calls me a "filthy, repulsive degenerate" along with dozens of other users, despite having had ample time to delete that personal attack.[46] (diff) As Floquenbeam noted, "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." Why didn't he take Cullen328's warning to him in 2018: "You seem to thrive on such little drama fests... Do not get into a single solitary editing dispute for nine years. Just walk away. The alternative is an indefinite block."? Hijiri88 says that he's going to stay away from contentious AfD discussion and the article on Mottainai from now on. If he is unblocked, those restrictions should be made formal. We also should consider whether a person who has been repeatedly been given chance after chance can ever work collaboratively on the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC) @Lightburst: You'll probably want to move this comment to User talk:Hijiri88#Unblock discussion, where the discussion is happening. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC) I think Deepfriedokra was correct that this should be a community discussion and not a discussion on a talk page. Just in case I posted there also, so thank you. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC) I think it's a community discussion that is well underway on Hijiri's talk page. There was some concern that posting here might be contra productive; there was some concern that it should be here. Splitting hairs, babies, and camel. Notice here; discussion there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Deepfriedokra thank you for the message. That makes sense. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - At least he's asking the community for reinstatement. He could've easily gone the sock-puppet route, but didn't. So give the lad praise for that. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What about the meat puppet route instead? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Who are the meat-puppets? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEAT. In a nutshell. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay didn't ask "What is a meat puppet?", but "Who are the meat-puppets?". If you're making an accusation, then make it already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit too tired to decipher cryptic insinuations today. Can you be a bit more clear about what you actually mean? Besides, meatpuppets probably describes Hijiri's pursuers more accurately than Hijiri. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Refering to Lugnuts statement above....Part of the reason why Hijiri88 had his talk page access removed until recently was because he asked another user to make edits for him while he was still blocked.[47] And it was also noted in a 2018 Arbcom clarification request that he frequently has asked other users to make edits for him that violate his own editing restrictions.[48] I have no idea whether he would sockpuppet, though it's worth noting that the IP accounts that he often edits with were still active during his current block.[49] Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero: Can you confirm whether Hijiri had TP access removed due to "ask[ing] another user to make edits for him while he was still blocked"? Thought it was for alleged IBAN violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: It was for an IBAN violation --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with Japanese internet stuff, which I guess is most people, that's a Wi2 IP. Wi2 is a company that offers short-term rental hotspots and a public wifi app, so one would expect different users to use an IP as the provider recycles it. I hope it isn't true that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, but in any event we should be careful about sock/meat speculation. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:35, 7 September 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.

Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to prohibit sitting arbitrators from serving as members of the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee in accordance with a community RfC. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Removal of permission

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

I would like to inform you about the fact that this user is banned by WMF from editing. I guess the extra flag is not needed anymore. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't remove perms from indeffed users. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

On huwiki they're blocked as a sockpuppet of Peadar. If Google Translate isn't failing me, hu:Wikipédia:Szerkesztők_véleményezése/Peadar_(másodszor) indicates both paid editing and copyright concerns. What should be done with Borgatya's autopatrolled article creations on enwiki? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As Primefac noted, this is not something we do. There's no sense in it. El_C 04:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, then I think there is nothing else to do. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of plot summaries

I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Wikipedia". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? Galobtter, I was told September would be a good time to appeal. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792,You promise to never copy from sources, yes? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Kailash29792:, I'm inclined to support this. But I have some concerns about Kailash's ability on handling near-paraphrasing, which is why I want to ask: are you talking about "you reading/watching the original book/film, and constructing a plot purely yourself" or "reading sources/reviews and then writing without drawing any of it from the soures"? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, yes I promise. Now the very thought of copying from the web (very often even books) makes me uneasy. Nosebagbear, I developed the plot of Guru Sishyan after watching it, and re-watched scenes to ensure I made no factual error. That is the approach I seek to follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. I could only do a comparatively sparse sense check due to the sheer number of recent edits, but I couldn't spot anything problematic. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, I'm happy to partially undo the requested part of the restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Is there perhaps someone familiar with the types of works that Kailash seems to want to add plot summaries to act as a short term mentor/checker to make sure the summary seems correct and not close paraphrase? Unfortunately these appear to be foreign films so not something like myself can check. --Masem (t) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that proper (short-term) mentoring here would be particularly onerous - since Kailash would be sourcing purely from the subject matter, rather than review sources, the reviewer would have to actually have watched the films to check it was being done properly - without that it's somewhat trying to prove a negative, which a mentor can't do any better than a standard copyright check. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban appeal As someone who is familiar with the situation and the primary copyright problem. Kailash is a competent editor who has been careful since their unblock and assisted in removing some commented out violations; I'm pretty sure they can be trusted. I don't think a mentor type deal is necessary (although I'd be able and am willing to fill that role), there's no significant deception going on here so Kailash can be taken by their word. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, so you want to engage in WP:OR? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding plots using the source material isn't considered original research. From WP:FILMPLOT: [s]ince films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, it wouldn't be OR if I'm adding the plot of a film which is available for viewing. Lost films need sources though, as WP:FILMPLOT says, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, yes it is. For some reason the film fans have chosen to interpret "no original research" as meaning "no original research apart from writing novel interpretations of things we like", but that's not what th epolicy actually is. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, the plot section doesn't contain "original interpretation"; it only describes the story of the film. The "interpretations" of the film go to "Themes" or a similar section and is subject to the the same sourcing requirements. WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not just some essay. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, it contains an individual user's personal observations, based on their own view of what is significant and their own interpretation of the narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, this view isn't supported by the wider community; guidelines explicitly state that adding plots isn't original research. If you disagree with WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, you can gain consensus to change it at the MOS talk page; Kailash's request at the noticeboard isn't the right place to bring up content disputes. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, yes, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists. It's still nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I won't add personal interpretations or opinions to the plot. Just look at my edits at X-Men: The Last Stand (here) and Us (here). Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, then source to third party plot summaries. Simples. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Kailash seems to understand not to copy/paste plot summaries. Darkknight2149 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Kailash is a well respected contributer and has improved many articles to GA/FA. He understands what mistakes he made and has said he won't repeat them. That's enough to lift the topic ban. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин

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.

---

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has twice pushed a primary study reported in the Lancet into Gam-COVID-Vac[50][51] into the Gam-COVID-Vac article. The second insertion being a restoration of material added by ManishSahu53. The primary source has been removed by both Alexbrn and me.

The page is under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and has a specific page-restriction: "Editors are prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article." stated on the talk page and repeated in the edit notice. Александр Мотин was [52] made aware of the general sanctions on 21 August 2020 by Salvio giuliano.

The Lancet is indeed a prestigious journal, but the report it published of the preliminary study is still a primary source. Our guidance at WP:MEDRS is quite clear:

"all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources ... Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content".

Александр Мотин received an indefinite topic ban from the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article in June for disruptive editing, and is now displaying similar behaviour at Gam-COVID-Vac he has a strong pro-Russian stance and tends to accuse those who disagree with him of editing in a biased manner. This clear breach of the general sanction on the article, coupled with his combative stance leads me to conclude that he should be editing articles related to Gam-COVID-Vac, and probably not any articles related to Russia. I am therefore seeking consensus from concerned admins for at least an indefinite topic ban from Gam-COVID-Vac, and I am seeking opinions on whether it should extend to all Russia-related articles, or even from editing at all. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with a topic ban from at least any topic related to Russia - while I have no clue what went on with Malaysia Airlines flight 17, it's clear to me from this user's actions on the GAM vaccine link and others that the user is only here to push Russian propagandist point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Whether this is because they are themselves only being given certain information, or because they are intentionally trying to be biased, I don't know - but regardless, it's detrimental to the encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Note the user is still, even after being informed of this thread, attempting to take the word "candidate" out of the article without consensus based on single non MEDRS sources. The user is clearly only here to push a point of view, even if they try to hide it by sometimes including some "criticism". I’ll note also that they have attempted to argue against the term "guinea pig" even after being explained it is a common term in the English language to refer to a "first tester" - showing they are not listening to others - while the term was ultimately removed it was for a different reason and it wasn’t “outrageous”. They also claim again that the lancet primary source is MEDRS, which it isn’t. A topic ban is necessary since they refuse to listen. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Now this - misrepresenting the source to say that they had confidence, when the source actually says that only 32% had "high confidence" where 34% only had "some confidence" - that is an important distinction. This also wasn't a survey of this specific vaccine - it was a survey regarding any vaccine produced by the countries given - it is synth to apply it to this specific vaccine. This is another example of why this user cannot be trusted to edit appropriately in any topic area where Russia is involved - they are misrepresenting the sources to make Russia look better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure a topic ban from Russia is the right move. Aleksandr Motin's edits to Russian railroad-related articles are quite productive, but I can definitely see how edits loosely pertaining to Russian politics can be problematic. A narrower topic ban might be more beneficial to the project. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's a ridiculous ADMINSHOPPING with distorted facts. Yesterday they already asked another admin to block me. But I suppose I was supported in that dispute. Just check this thread. Obviously they want to block the user with a neutral point of view. Also check the article's talk page, especially "Guinea pig" section where these editors were trying to prove that calling the president a "guinea pig" is quite normal for WP articles. It is no less outrageous that they want to forbid writing about The Lancet's peer-review while The Lancet is a very strong RS/MEDRS and they know it. --Александр Мотин (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• We had this less than a month ago. We are having this right now (note how the discussion escalated as soon as Александр Мотин joined it). The problem with Александр Мотин's editing is that whereas their understanding of the policies is limited he is absolute sure that he knows everything. He is just unable to admit that he might be wrong and anybody else could be right. If people are unhappy with his edits, this is not because he is doing something wrong but because others either do not understand the policies or are biased against him. This is how they got an indef block (an analog of a site ban) on the Russian Wikipedia. This is how he got partially blocked from MH17 here. And every time the community spends an enormous amount of time to sort this behavior out. I would advocate a site ban just to save our time, but at the very list we need a topic ban on Russian politics broadly construed, or even on Russia broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just another portion of distorted facts by this Russian administrator who is biased (question #10) against voluntary association Wikimedia Russia and its members which is a Russian office of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Ymblanter is very tactfully silent (in bad sense) about the fact that I started a discussion here and it was he who escalated this issue to a Wikiproject "Trains" talk page. And now he is accusing me of what he did. And yeah, check the vaccine's talk page. Just look, at first they said that we need strong RS/MEDRS, and then when these sources (without Russophobic rebukes) appeared (The Lancet), these sources immediately turned into unacceptable ones. P.S. Ymblanter is also silent about the fact that the case of indef block in RU WP is still being investigated for almost a year because the admin, who indef blocked me, was previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for another faulty indef block and his adminship may be revoked. But Ymblanter wasn't even going to mention it. And I think it's clear why. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Ymblanter. Александр is clearly escalating disputes, causing good people to lose patience, and, per the above, assuming bad faith on the part of those who voice obviously legitimate criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• You think I'm against legitimate criticism? I started the article with criticism. Then I added more criticism. But this does not mean that, for instance, I must call the President of the country a Guinea pig in order to please someone here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• You may not like me, but I do nothing to undermine Wikipedia and I'm not going to.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all Russia- (read former Soviet Union)-related topics. Have recently come across this editor at WT:TWP. Seems to have major problems working collaboratively with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Editor is a total time-sink. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oh dear, I'm seeing a very aggressive and tendentious approach here, no effort to listen to and understand what other people are saying, and a habit of responding to disagreement with personal attacks. I support an indefinite topic ban from Covid-19, and an indefinite topic ban on Russia-related topics, both broadly construed. I don't know if that might constitute an effective site ban, or whether that would be a better alternative, but I wouldn't oppose it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the "site-range" ban, overkill measure, one would resort to generating a new account, maybe by chainging ISP/mobile operator. ALSO: Motin only failed to grasp the concept of WP:MEDRS, which requires to avoid single researches, and rely only on meta-analyses. ALSO: the article in question, Gam-COVID-Vac is mainly about the Summer 2020 scandal around it, not the vaccine candidate itself.

  However, I do support removing Motin from any Russia-related and medical topics, since Мотин even fails to reply to me in Russian; and brandished "basic English" plaque on his page. Uchyotka (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As for the commentary from The Lancet, rather than the raw data; the added more criticism claim was valid; but a glimpse of valuable commentary happened... haphazardly.

However, his recent "This is not a stand-up comedy" reply to me was confusing. Indeed, I was expecting to be reminded "Motin" surname can be derived from a certain Russian word; but I wasn't reminded so.

If people are unhappy with his edits, this is not because he is doing something wrong but because others either do not understand the policies or are biased against him. comment was a neat one. Uchyotka (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Please see this exchange where the user in question here attempted to justify at best WP:SYNTH and at worst intentional misrepresentation of a source. At this point, it is obviously either WP:IDHT when they are explained they're wrong, or intentional misrepresentation of sources when they edit - either way the only possible remedy at this point is a topic ban. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support (at the least) an indefinite topic ban on COVID-19 articles. The user is aggressively disruptive on talk pages and in articles, and is promoting Russian disinformation sources. Zefr (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• In the meanwhile, since the opening of this topic, Gam-COVID-Vac and its talk page continue to be a battlefield, pretty much Александр Мотин against everybody else.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Motin created more than 2,000 pages related to buildings in Russia, and these pages are fine, he had no problems related to them. So, if any topic ban to be enacted, this might be only ban on Russian politics or COVID. A blanket ban to all Russia-related subjects would not be appropriate in my opinion. Probably the best worded topic ban (if any) would be on subjects related to "Russian government" or "Russian politics" because they would cover both Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and Gam-COVID-Vac. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with others that the contributions by Motin to pages Gam-COVID-Vac and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were not helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure

@Salvio giuliano, Ymblanter, JzG, Mjroots, and Boing! said Zebedee: I think there's a pretty clear consensus that Александр Мотин should not be editing pages related to COVID-19 or to Russian politics, broadly construed. Nevertheless, I also think there are indications that his edits outside those fields can be useful and we ought to allow him to continue his work with railways and buildings. I feel too invested in the COVID-19 area to impose a topic ban on him without having arguments about being WP:INVOLVED, so can I ask an admin uninvolved in those areas to assess the above discussion and implement appropriate community general sanctions, please? --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, speaking personally, I'd rather see a bit more participation before imposing a sanction... Sorry. Salvio 17:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

For an Eastern European issue, this is an extremely high participation. Usually, nobody cares except for user(s) directly affected by disruption. Here, the guy managed to edit disruptively on several occasions and in several articles, and personally attacked pretty much every opponent, this is why a dozen users care.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I understand. I'll be closing the discussion tomorrow, then, unless someone else closes it first. Salvio 20:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to wait for even longer if appropriate, but this topic should not be archived without being acted upon.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Motin have just replied to me on "guinea pigs". He replied to me "when president ... is called a [guinea] pig, it podzabornoe khamstvo, e.g. a profanity, a bad-mouthery one would hear from a drunk-like-a-skunk person. In the same time, Motin's page openly claims "this user...basic English". Now, to my point on that particular case. Claiming someone is a "guinea pig" is an epithet, a byname, and bynames aren't supposed to be neutral; as opposed to literary words; bynames always begin with some kind of connotation. I do believe the very idea of calling anyone "guinea pig" is comme çi, comme ça in terms of neutrality; but that's not the case; I am afraid Motin is not too good with handling bynames; so politics discussion don't really suit him.
  • Fast analysis of this particular one: the "guinea pig" animal is never "guinea" in Russian, but phrase "morskaya svinka", literally "sea/naval piggy" is used. Yet in the "test subject" meaning, Russians use either "podopiitnaya krysa" (literally "under-test rat") or "podopytny krolik" (literally "under-test rabbit"); the latter is used because being compared to a krysa, a rat = bad, offencive connotation; and rabbits are also used in experiment. Point is, A. M. could have easily "runglished" words like "guinea pig" without knowing what connotation a "normalized" byname, this one or any other, has in English, compared to the connotation of its analog, look-alike phrase in Russian. Uchyotka (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The "guinea pig" phrase is defying the idea of being a volounteer, IMHO; as if an animal was forced to parttake... Uchyotka (talk) 21:36, 12 September 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.

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

I'm under false accusation of vandalism

Certain unregistered user is constantly vandalizing an article about Melissa Hutchison (by claiming her to have a voice role that is already confirmed to be someone else's and probably with different IP addresses. But when I undid his/her edits, he/she wrote to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism under IP address 49.144.196.63 and claim I would have stolen "his/her" username. Ad Orientem has already declined that IP user's request, but that IP now demands a revision from logs and sockpuppet investigations. If that IP user doesn't know my email address, then I could easily prove that I am the real CAJH. But if the IP user would find out my email, what other ways there would be for me to prove my innocence? CAJH (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

IP notified of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• In the absence of evidence that an account has been compromised the presumption is that it has not. In this situation, the burden of proof lies with the IP. When I declined the AIV report I did so because they did not make any claim of specific actionable conduct, much less offer evidence. And there were no warnings on your talk page. So I don't really know what is going on here. At the moment I am inclined to call this a nothing burger, but if the IP wants to chime in and offer some kind of explanation we can go from there. Otherwise, I'd just move on and come back if the situation pops up again down the road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment as long as you're the only editor that can log in to User:CAJH there's no real likelihood of confusing you with an IP editor or doppleganger account (or fake sockpuppet). The WP:AIV reports appear to be (correctly) ignored. (the possibility of you being a sock of TCCJH (talk · contribs) which last edited in 2010 can be safely ignored even if you were the same person) ((templates are hard, let's go shopping)) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I originally created CAJH when I registered as a user in Finnish version of Wikiquotes. TCCJH was created for Wikipedia before I realized that CAJH can be used in all Wikimedia sites. Ever since I realized that, I stopped using TCCJH. CAJH (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked CAJH2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an impersonator. It's pretty clearly attempting a Joe Job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• @CAJH:, you can redirect the old user page and user talk page to the new. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I redirect them? Aren't they a little bit different case than an article page? CAJH (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CAJH, I've done it for you. Feel free to revert if you don't want it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It's only redirected in English Wikipedia. CAJH (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah - apologies, don't know how to help you do that globally. Maybe try the Help Desk? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, you ain't the only one. I guess you need to do it for each page, unless it will work just doing it on Meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think stewards have some tools for this task, one needs to ask them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Evelynkwapong539 / Kof4490

I have a feeling these users, User:Evelynkwapong539 ,User:Kof4490, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.149.110.122, might be the same person editing articles relating to Looney Tunes Cartoons. They have been blocked multiple times as Evelynkwapong539, but I have a feeling that they are creating another account and not logging in to get around that. A page they created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters, has been brought up for discussion to be deleted, but since they disagree with this without explaining their reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977473710 , they deleted the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977522088 template of deletion policy without explanation.

Proof of similar edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976583210 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959423907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=977521861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976377605 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970247049

I have been patient with this person for a while, but I don't see them ever truly understanding how disruptive their edit warring can be.

Noelephant(talk) 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPI is really the correct venue for this. That being said, I've indeffed Kof4490 as a  Confirmed sock and blocked Evelynkwapong539 for two weeks. If this was an attempt at a clean start, it failed completely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

How do we handle content that describes a movie's revenue and success? Is it an issue per NPOV?

Hi everyone! I hope that you're all having a great labor day! I'm on call with my job, so I'm unfortunately tied to my desk at home through the entire week when I'm not at work.  :-) I have a question and a possible concern about something that I've noticed on and on, numerous times, over the years that I've patrolled recent changes. On many articles where the subject is a movie or film, they often include content in a section or even the summary paragraph talking about the film's success. They often comprise of sentences such as "this film achieved significant critical and commercial success", "was praised by critics and fans", etc - as well as the opposite when a film or movie doesn't become a "box office success" (as it's often called), or doesn't make more money than it cost to create. I'm slightly concerned that these statements might be an issue in regards to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Statements like these come off to me as opinionated, that we're saying that this film was a success or failure, and that we're taking sources and summarizing them with an opinionated statement. I'm not sure how we should consider these statements, and whether or not they're appropriate in regards to NPOV. Is there a discussion or consensus somewhere stating that these kinds of statements are appropriate? A portal project that states such? What are your thoughts when you see statements like these in film-related articles? I'm sure you've all seen them on articles like this, and I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm talking about. I need some guidance, and I don't know how to handle these edits when I see them get added. Can you offer me assistance? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, definitely not neutral. I remove this when I find it. Even worse, what many editors do is compare a film's budget to how much it grossed. If the gross is higher than the budget, they call it a "box office success". This is not how it works. Studios have to share revenue with the cinemas, so you can't just compare the two numbers and decide, "it's a success!" The same is true of failures. Studios have various ways of writing off costs. A film that underperforms may eventually turn a profit once the accountants are done with their magic, and a film that grosses twice as much as its budget may still end up losing money. We can't know. The issues with reviews are more straightforward, but we already have two review aggregators to tell us what critics thought: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. We don't need Wikipedians to give us their synthy interpretations on top that. The reason why is because everyone thinks their favorite film was critically acclaimed, but the films they disliked were a critical failure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, MOS:FILM is where most film-related guidelines end up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the correct noticeboard, but I will answer anyway. How well a film did critically and commercially is a matter of interpretation and should be reliably sourced to an article that says that. We should say that Citizen Cane, Casablanca, etc. are highly regarded, just as we would say the same about Shakespeare's plays or Dickens' novels. Whether or not they were good movies is a matter of opinion, but whether critics assess them highly is a matter of fact.

Commercial success is not subjective. Any business enterprise can be evaluated based on profit. Because there is insufficient information for writers of reliable sources to calculate profit, they usually look at North American box office receipts = production costs as break even.

TFD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are looking for relevant NPOV policy, it looks like you want WP:AESTHETIC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. RS will describe the commercial performance of any notable commercial film (e.g., Hollywood films), and for any notable film, RS will describe how it was received by critics and the general public. So box office success and this film achieved significant critical and commercial success are OK if that's how the RSes describe it (and they commonly describe films using those phrases),but they're not the best phraseology. More "showing" than "telling" would be better, e.g., was one of the top 10 highest-grossing films of the year is better than "box office success" and was nominated for an Academy Award is better than "achieved significant critical success". But at bottom, it's not promotional to describe how a film fared commercially or how it was received by critics; those are important aspects of a film; a film's impact on the world is as important as, say, who directed it. Lev!vich 05:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with TFD. I'll add that WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are important when writing about how a film is regarded.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above by TFD and Levivich, I'll just add that the LEAD should be written in summary style so there needs to be reliable sourcing to back-up the statements. If there is no body, there needs to be that reliable sourcing built right into the lead. And if we're in the body there's nothing wrong with saying "X was generally well received" as an introduction to 10 favorable reviews to follow. NPOV doesn't mean we fail to acknowledge that things were liked by critics/awards or that it lost a lot of money, it means we give it in proportion to RS. So if it was generally well received we should reflect that, but we should also, in proper proportion, include less flattering or negative receptions of the material. With movies there will be RS that we can use to decide whether to say if something was a bomb - a term so notable in the industry it has its own article and we can reflect that without running into issues with our core content policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"Statements like these come off to me as opinionated, that we're saying that this film was a success or failure, and that we're taking sources and summarizing them with an opinionated statement." Wikipedia prevents its editors from expressing their opinions in article space. It does not prevent the editors from summarizing the opinions or facts found in available sources, and opinionated sources are specifically allowed: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view itself states that we should represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". To ignore praises and criticisms in order to keep the article devoid of opinionated statements, would both be against Wikipedia policy and mean that the article is practically devoid of information. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:PythonSwarm and GA reviews - proposal for topic ban

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.

---

PythonSwarm (talk · contribs · logs) has developed a habit of getting involved with technical and policy matters which are beyond his understanding. His talk page is littered with requests not to get involved in such areas e.g. User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive/Old_Archives#Taking_things_a_little_more_slowly, User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive#Please_stop and User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive#September_2020. As a result of failing to listen to advice they are currently blocked from editing WP:RFP/R and WP:RFP/PCR. The latest area is GA reviews.

• They conducted two reviews (Talk:Network synthesis/GA1 and Talk:Charles Corydon Hall/GA1), one pass and one fail, both with one line reviews with no reference to the GA criteria.
• A third Talk:Typographer (typewriter)/GA1 was started but PythonSwarm placed it on hold asking for a second opinion.
• Concerns were raised at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_page_falsely_tagged/reviewed? and PythonSwarm was messaged about the discussion. Despite the concerns, they conducted another GA review in exactly the same way Talk:Automatic scorer/GA1.

At that point both User:GeneralNotability and I suggested that PythonSwarm should not conduct any more GA reviews and participate in the discussion at WT:GAN. They did make a comment at WT:GAN that I should discuss this before reviewing any other articles for some reason and despite being told in no uncertain terms that the standard of their reviews was unacceptable then commenced another GA review Talk:Injector pen/GA1.

From this I understand that PythonSwarm is a young editor and while they might be full of enthusiasm they do not comprehend the effects of their action or when to step away from a topic. The conduct at WP:GA and previous actions at pages like WP:RFP and behaviour such as archiving or blanking their talk page immediately after receiving criticism make me think that nothing short of a topic ban from GA, broadly construed, and the threat of a block for breaching the ban will stop them creating more disruption in this area that others have to clear up. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. One needs a fairly firm grasp of things before diving in to GA review. PythonSwarm lacks that grasp and isn't listening to other editors. Spurious GA reviews are a huge waste of other people's time. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - they clearly do not understand the GA process and are not listening to other editors telling them to stop. Given that this is a recurring pattern, this user may end up with a WP:CIR block sooner rather than later, but I'm willing to extend a little rope. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - going from instant pass to "it would not pass" on an article that is probably in the middle shows they don't realise what the criteria is. Whilst most users can be trained, and get better with experience, there's so much here to untangle with WP:CIR issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Someone with fewer than 200 mainspace edits should not be conducting GA reviews. Let them get some experience writing content and adding sources first. P-K3 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We believe in being WP:BOLD, but there are certain areas of the project which required specialized knowledge and experience to be effective, and GA is certainly one of them. Nobody minds if you dabble into new areas. That's how you learn. But when you refuse helpful advice, you've gone past being bold; that's just being reckless and/or disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I've been cleaning up a few of those noms today and the issue isn't dabbling into new areas, we all have done that in the past. The issue for me is the lack of response to concerns and the inability to discuss their edits. As others have noted there are definite WP:CIR issues here. Woody (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Those reviews are not acceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion PythonSwarm - you are young and enthusiastic - we need people like that to keep our project moving forward. However, I hope that you can see from the comments above that you are not ready yet for the types of area you have been trying to get involved with, and you are inevitably going to get banned from making them because you haven't been taking on board what people are saying to you. Please try to use this as a learning experience - nobody wants to be mean to you, they just want you to learn how things work a bit better before you do reviews. If you are really interested in the GA process, I'd strongly suggest that you attempt to write a good article yourself and go through the review process as an author rather than a reviewer - either write one from scratch, or take an existing one that you're interested in and see whether you can improve it. I don't know what subject floats your boat - personally I mostly write about historic buildings, but I'm sure you've got different interests - but try to find a narrowly constrained subject that you can find some really good sources on, and are interested in writing about. Feel free to ping me if you want me to take a look at something and tell you whether it's ready to go forward for GA review. Going through the process yourself is vital preparation for attempting to take other people through it as a reviewer. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - they have a lot of enthusiasm but unfortunately unaware of their own limits. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support – As one who has just finished(?) dealing with an enthusiastic but inexperienced and careless user who views any criticism as an attack, I think I understand how frustrating this is. We need new people entering the editing corps, and should try to nurture newcomers as much as possible so they develop a sense of craftsmanship and pride in the Wikipedia community. Some people naturally start things slowly and are amenable to constructive criticism, some don't learn until they get a bloody nose running into a wall, and a few—sadly—just never learn. I think it's fairly clear PythonSwarm doesn't fall into the first category. Let's try Nthep's proposed solution to see if it helps. I'll help him/her, if I can. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support he is not that good with GA, plus I support an additional topic ban from Wikipedia namespace. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support If I'm being honest here, then I think he needs to take time to sit and learn. Sometimes, I do make mistakes and what I do when these things happen is that I took these times to learn what I have done. In these times, I take some time away from taking some actions that could make not just some problems for me, but everyone involved. SMB99thx my edits 08:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  I also support CIR block, not just for TBAN. PythonSwarm should not just sitting there and learn by all himself, but PythonSwarm needs to take a lesson and hear what we say. Otherwise, he's going to end up like PlavorSeol. SMB99thx my edits 05:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Insufficient - PythonSwarm was making unhelpful comments on other users' RFP requests until warned, stopped for a while then resumed until I blocked them from 2 of the RFP pages. Then he started to mess up in the WP:GA reviews. Since then he's moved on to WP:DYK as his chosen venue, starting an RFC over a two word change and edit warring over "purge" vs "clear the cache" at Template:DYK nomination header (history). A TBAN from GA is, unfortunately, just kicking the can down the road. PythonSwarm has shown he'll just find another area where he can pass comment on the contributions of other editors without making significant contributions himself. I'm unconvinced that anything short of a WP:CIR block will be enough. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree, and will add WT:CSD#RfC: Clarification for G5 to the mix. This user has absolutely no concept of the amount of wasted time they're imposing on everyone else. —Cryptic 12:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Cabayi: whats RFP? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • usernamekiran, Requests For Permissions, WP:RfP. Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        • lol. I think I just broke all the records for wiki-stupidity, as this is the venue where I had first seen the user in discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR block Letting an editor down gently is the last thing we should do here. AGF is not a suicide pact. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR block, from WP space at the very least. I'm sorry to say this, but while their editing is being discussed at AN and multiple editors have been telling them to slow down and earn their spurs, PythonSwarm has started editing widely used templates and policy pages such as WP:Oversight and, perhaps ironically, WP:Disruptive editing. They don't know what they're doing, and they're not listening to the advice they're getting - they need to limit themselves to article content and sourcing, or be entirely blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR block: at this point I, sadly, agree that a CIR block is needed. It's a whack-a-mole at this point. Tell him to stop in one category and he pops up in another category and needs to be addressed or reined in. At the very least, a restriction to article edits (and their associated talk pages) may be needed. only (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR Block I'd like to think that a Wikipedia-space block would be enough, but the DYK concerns suggest that a Template space block (or topic-ban) might also be needed. Their mainspace edits aren't great either. A spot check of 10 or so found none that are clearly beneficial; some add unreferenced content and some are unnecessary or incorrect templates (Special:Diff/975931177 and Special:Diff/977514963 as two examples). Without a mentor, they have no chance of being a net benefit to the project with any set of restrictions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR block Better to have a CIR block in place of discussing so many topic bans. He has been already blocked from multiple spaces. Wareon (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR block I normally don't comment in such discussions, but this user has CIR issues on multiple wikis, as well as phabricator. See m:User talk:PythonSwarm for the latest - I have blocked them indefinitely on meta. They are also currently blocked on mediawiki ("Disruptive editing both on-wiki and on Phabricator, refusing to listen. See talk page for more details.") and have their account disabled on phabricator (phab:p/ThesenatorO5-2). Taken in addition to their enwiki edits, its clear to me that CIR applies. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• CIR To add to Danny above, there's also commons:User_talk:PythonSwarm#You_may_be_blocked_soon + wall. For MW there's mw:Project:Requests/User rights/ThesenatorO5-2 & Context of phab ban followed by mw:User_talk:AKlapper_(WMF)#Block_appeal followed by block. Note after this topic ban proposal was started, and after they replied here, they've opened another RfC (to change two words) and made edits to two policy pages (now both reverted). As much as I'd like to support less action, unfortunately, all evidence considered, this may be an intractable problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support CIR block One month ago, Risker gave this editor some excellent advice and a warning. Risker is one of our most senior editors, an administrator, a checkuser, an oversighter and a veteran of ArbCom. This editor deleted that message and disregarded Risker's advice, and continued with their disruption. During this discussion, they have persisted with advancing the theory that if they just had 50 more edits or X number of edits, they should be permitted to participate in areas where they have been disruptive. This is not acceptable. Yes, perhaps this is a young person who deserves attempts at friendly treatment, but repeated attempts to steer their behavior in a positive direction have been unsuccessful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - With even one more incident resulting in a CIR block indefinitely. I am sympathetic to PythonStorm for trying to do the right thing, but the repeated IDHT is taking the piss. This GA incident in particular is wince-worthy, since users (including myself) often wait for eight or nine months for GA reviews. Darkknight2149 06:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal statement of PythonSwarm

Addendum I will stop editing the projectspace except for minor changes, and I will learn slowly the GA criteria, starting from the DYK criterias per suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PythonSwarm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC) I have been revoking my old reviews and participating in adding content, and I am currently learning the GA criteria. There is now no need to ban me from doing so, as I will come back to GA review only after 250 mainspace edits and resolving that thread with my involvement. After I finished that, I will ask for somebody experienced to help. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 22:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

There is certainly a need to implement the topic ban since you seem to think that just getting 50-60 more edits is going to be enough to get you to learn the GA process. only (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

PythonSwarm, There are many areas where we need people to work. If you're interested in doing reviews, may I suggest WP:DYK would be a better place to start. It's not as technically rigorous as WP:GAR. This would be a much better place to learn how reviewing in general works, in a lower-pressure environment. We really try not to put too much emphasis on edit counts, but it would be quite surprising if anybody with 250 mainspace edits has developed the skills needed to be conducting GA reviews. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No, DYK is a bad idea. Just plain article editing is where new editors should concentrate. EEng 04:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep, Roysmith, and Only: Maybe I should come back to GA only when I have 500 mainspace edits? Although DYK is suitable for me. I do not want a ban since that means I cannot even participate in GA discussions, which I will sometimes participate in.-- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 23:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

PythonSwarm, Come back to GA when you've developed the experience and skills to be there. There's no set number of edits, but to give you one data point, I probably had 30,000 edits before I made my first GA submission. It's really the wrong place for a new editor to be concentrating on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

PythonSwarm as I said above, I don't think you should attempt to do GA reviews until you've written at least one GA and been through the process as an author. Learn how to write articles before you try to evaluate other people's work. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is mentioned somewhere above but to bring it out more squarely: this appears to be a young person so let's let them down gently. Don't the new partial blocks allow blocking by namespace e.g. block all namespaces but article, article talk, and user talk? (I'm assuming the blocking machinery treats a user's own user page as special case.) EEng 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That is true though. Mediawiki allows namespace-wide blocks, but through some tests on my VM running 1.34, ubuntu, PHP7.4, MySQL and HTTPD, you can block editors from editing a namespace, sitewide, or pages, but the own userpage will still be blocked if one blocks userspace. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 00:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser note

PythonSwarm currently holds IPBE, under my grant. I have already warned him that a continuation of his disruptive editing could lead to removal of the IPBE (which requires users to be "in good standing"). Without going into too much personal detail, removing IPBE would likely have a side effect of preventing him from editing entirely. I'd be hard-pressed to maintain him under IPBE with a wide-ranging topic ban/block, but at the same time I do not want to interfere with this community discussion. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this. Risker (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I would think that revocation of the IPBE, maybe on a temporary basis would help compound the message of whatever happens above, and hopefully encourage them to review how they're steering wrong. Thepenguin9 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a block in place now, so I don't think IPBE needs to be removed. If PythonSwarm is be able to negotiate some sort of unblock, I'd expect it to include a ban on any "behind-the-scenes" or policing work. If that happens, there'll presumably still be a genuine need for IPBE. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed IPBE a short while ago. I'm probably the one of the most liberal checkusers when it comes to IPBE, but even I balk at having my name attached to an IPBE grant to a user who has managed to get himself blocked, even after he was warned by multiple people that he had to change his editing behaviour, and warned by me that a block may result in the removal of IPBE. Risker (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

​ A few semi-irrelevant questions: would this user be able to edit thrir talkpage without IPBE? How do someone from a country where Wikipedia is banned can create an account on wikipedia/edit wikipedia? Please feel free to decline to answer the Q if it can spill some beans. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement 2

Maybe this discussion should be stopped until I edit another project page or GA review? I can stop that. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 00:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

PythonSwarm, I see no reason to stop the discussion - the fact that you are continuing to make problematic edits in new areas while the above discussion suggests that this discussion is, in fact, needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability I have stopped that. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 02:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Block implemented

Consensus above had move towards a WP:CIR block. In the meanwhile, in just the last hour he has started vandalism patrol which resulted in a report to AIV of an established user for including a stray nowiki tag in a post. No warning, no discussion; just a revert and immediate report to AIV. He also submitted this policy proposal. Because of this on-going shifting from one area to another without the competency for any of those areas, I have implemented an indefinite block for CIR. I will not be available throughout most of the next 8-10 hours, so review can go on without me and anyone is welcome to overturn if there is consensus for that. But, now that he's starting to report established users for vandalism that isn't there, I needed to stop him from further damage. only (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Only: You forgot to change it from a partial block to a full block. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 11:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Only, I have pushed the buttons to turn the partial block into a full one to prevent disruption while you're away. If, once you're back, you want to rechange the settings, so that it's clear that it's your block and I didn't take it over, please feel free. Salvio 11:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I actually got it seconds before you! Thanks for the catch and adjustment. only (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

He also cautioned an IP (84.67.86.191) who has never edited - CIR indeed. Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That one has edits in the edit filter that he warned it for. (I had had the same thought until I checked the filter log). only (talk) 11:53, 14 September 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.

RFC closure review

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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § RFC closure review

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The closure of RFC by MrX at MEK talk page is questioned by the participants. I think the closure note is not fairly evaluating the comments based on the guidelines. More significantly, MrX says my "detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's". This is while, in response to my comment, BarcrMac said that "Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article". Though BarcrMac never replied to my further comments, I am asking it here: Do we only include 'proved points' or we should go by the reliable sources? Furthermore, MrX fails to address this comment by Ali Ahwazi which focuses on the POV issue of the proposed sentence. Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Community close reviews usually go at WP:AN not ANI, as this isn't a "urgent, chronic, intractable behavioural problem". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a major divergence from the status quo. The closing summary is wholly insufficient. It lacks key substance. It also, as a result, comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. As the uninvolved admin who has the most experience with this article, I take a dim view of this closure. El_C 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I don't know what "major divergence from the status quo" means in the context of the RfC, or even how it would be a factor in overturning a RfC closing. Perhaps you could elaborate. Also, what is your basis for saying that my close comes across as a supervote? Implicit in that is the notion that I am involved, or have a stake in the outcome? - MrX 🖋 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned that you have the most experience with this article, but I don't see that you have ever closed an RfC or adjudicated any other content dispute on the subject.[53] As far as I can tell, you have protected the article seven times and suppressed copyright violations.[54] - MrX 🖋 12:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: RfCs have become the only means for editors to advance the editing process in that contentious page. Even then, these RfCs take months to be reviewed, and when they are, they often close in "no consensus" based on the difficulties surrounding them. Every once in a while an uninvolved and experienced editor steps up and gracefully offers to break the stalemate that are these Talk page discussions, as Mr.X has done for us here. Complaining every time one of these RfCs doesn't go our way (as Mhhossein has been doing) seems to defeat the only means available for a consensus-building process in that page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

All the closures can be reviewed. You should not be concerned if you think the closure is appropriate since the admins will look after it. Moreover, RFCs should not be mis-used to reshape the article according to one's desired version by tag-teaming or like. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:57, 9 September 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.

• Purely procedural point, but doesn't this discussion need to go on, and require a community consensus to keep the overturn? Non-admin editors close contentious RfCs all the time. I believe WP:BADNAC only allows uninvolved admins to undo deletion closes by a non-admin, not RfC closes. I think it sets dangerous precedent to allow any NAC to be unilaterally overturned because the dispute closed was contentious. I note that this area is covered by community DS, but I see no entry in the log to indicate this was a DS action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I see now the matter is before ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JzG. If indeed uninvolved admins may revert RfC NACs, can we add some wording to that effect in WP:BACNAC? The wording is in contradiction to other policy pages, eg BADNAC says NACs across the board are inappropriate where the issue is controversial, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure which says non-admins may close move discussions, even high-profile and contentious ones, and that such an action isn't itself grounds for overturning. In any case, I think some guideline pages/supplements should get a wording update for clarity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The overturn was not solely because the closure was carried out by a non-admin user, rather the closure was though to be improper. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• At this point I am not seeing a consensus or policy reason that their close should not stand. I note at the article talk about the close it was mixed as well as here. So until a consensus is reached or a clear policy based reason is presented it should be reinstated. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Totally should be reinstated. This re-opening was done outside of policy and without any discussion with MrX. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with PackMecEng. Just before this RfC, User:Kraose (a user with just over 1K edits) closed a highly-contentious RfC on the same page (Kraose had also previously endorsed the RFC's OP to be topic-banned) and nobody seemed to mind about that. Now User:MrX closes this RfC, and suddenly he shouldn't have for some unknown reason. Mhhossein was also quick to revert the results of that RfC. MrX's close should stand until a proper discussion of why this was an "inappropriate close" is established by the community. Alex-h (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think may be technically within the scope of discretionary sanctions to undo an RfC close, due to the broadness of DS in these matters (only deletions are explicitly prohibited, afaik). In which case this is merely a procedural matter of logging the action, and would solve the larger procedural question. JzG may wish to log this as such, if indeed a DS action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Double-redirect fixing bots: a cautionary tale

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Double redirect vandalism discussion at AN

 – Nothing administrators can do to fix this; it's up to the bot operators to resolve. wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2010, an IP redirected the page Javier Solana to Antichrist with this edit. About 45 minutes later, the vandalism was reverted. There was enough time for a bot to "fix" the double redirect, sending redirects to Solana's page to Antichrist. See [55]. This was not fixed until about two months ago [56]. So, for 10 years, a double-redirect fixing bot perpetuated WP:BLP-violating page move vandalism. I can only get pageviews stats for about half of that range, but the misplaced redirect specifically mentioned above got 59 pageviews in that time. Other redirects got fixed quicker, but there were still others that kept trucking on for 10 years. Don Ezequiel Solana de Ramirez got 178 pageviews at the wrong target. Javier Madariaga got 118 Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga had 167. A number of other redirects retargeted by the bot were fixed in the 2010-2013 range, which seems better until you realize that's still 3 years a BLP violation stuck around. It's a little questionable, ain't it, that these bots can perpetuate serious BLP vandalism for over a decade ... Hog Farm _Bacon 14:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, not much the bot can do about that. They can have a longer delay, but on some pages this kind of vandalism can go unspotted for longer, and a longer delay has its own issues. Probably a difficult issue to solve, really, as the redirects to link would update so you wouldn't be able to manually restore that way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hm, seems like a problem well worth discussing. Does the bot keep a log? If it did, someone undoing redirect vandalism could check the bot's log to see if there were any double redirects "fixed" as a result of the vandalism, and then the vandalism patroller would at least have a list of bot edits to revert, which might help (if we can get patrollers to remember to check the log... even better if tools like Huggle could prompt the patroller to do that somehow). Lev!vich 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure we have several double redirect bots, including some global bots (under the Meta global bot policy), so even if a couple had a log they’d all be using different logs. Which complicates the issue somewhat. I think this issue should be popped onto the bot noticeboard btw, as it’ll require attention from that group of editors to ‘resolve’. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. In theory they could all be coded to maintain one central log. (Although it begs the question: why do we have multiple double-redirect-fixing bots?) Lev!vich 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That'd be hard to do. Not even sure how many double redirect bots we've got locally (as the general list stopped being maintained in 2012), but on top of those we've got the global bots, whose operators won't be active on enwiki. Many bot ops are also currently inactive/busy, some only show up once every now and then to restart their bot if it goes down or something, so getting a change to even one bot is difficult. Double redirects are a pretty big issue, so we do need redundancies in the form of multiple bots. One approach may be to have a new bot could be made which listens to the "Redirect target changed" tag and makes a log, I guess, and flag up any changed redirects after the original page is changed, but not sure if that's the best approach. I think it's best to refer this to WP:BOTN or something to have a botop/BAG experienced in double redirects take a look. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

removal of permissions

Hi can somebody remove my pending chamges reviewer and rollbacker permissions, as I'm on retirement for the time being. I will re-request at PERM when necessary. Thanks ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Chariot Awaits

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.

---

Could some kind admin close this AfD? It's been open for almost a month, and it's been two weeks since the last relist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 12 September 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.

Ricardo Lopez, the Bjork stalker

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 was blocked from editing for continually correcting his last words. The assertion was made that the source given was more valid despite it literally just being someone else's interpretation of what he said from the same, low quality video. At the most, it should be "Something incoherent"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP refused to provide a reliable secondary source, instead preferring their own interpretation of the video over what a reliable news source said. I blocked the IP for the behavior of persistently edit warring to add their own preferred interpretation or to remove the ABC News source entirely. This is about as cut and dried a diff as you can get for a 3RR violation: [57] —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

But the source was literally the same source I was using, the video. Just because it happens to be interpreted by someone on an ABC article does not make it more accurate. The fact that so many people hear it as "Victory!" that you have to have a note in the source telling people not to edit it to victory speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If any additional administrators (or even users) would like to explain WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:No original research to the IP, I would appreciate the assist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure it will make a difference. I don't know if the IP actually misunderstands these things, or if they are deliberately misunderstanding them to make their point. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

IP user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and probably not worth engaging with much more until they show they are prepared to engage constructively. Popcornfud (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In case this editor is willing to engage constructively, I would note that Wikipedia articles are based on published secondary sources, not individual editors' interpretation of primary sources, so the fact that it was interpreted by someone in a secondary source makes it more accurate for Wikipedia purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought the point was to make the most accurate compendium of knowledge possible. You should be glad that someone is willing to take the time to nitpick something like this. If personal interpretation of the video is not allowed then it shouldn't be allowed just because someone is writing for an otherwise reputable source. That's appeal to authority fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Phil Bridger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose Please quote anything resembling "Our goal is first and foremost to be in line with secondary sources" from that wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Purpose is an information page. The relevant policy page is Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Purpose is an information page. The relevant policy page is Wikipedia:Verifiability." From that page "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." The ABC article can't be considered reliable when it's only source is the same video I'm citing. Either the video is sufficient or it's not. It going through a third party does not make it more or less valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"The ABC article can't be considered reliable when it's only source is the same video I'm citing." Again, you're misunderstanding the policy. The video is a primary source, and the ABC article interpreting it is a secondary source. Your interpretation is WP:OR. Perhaps read WP:PSTS. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"The video is a primary source, and the ABC article interpreting it is a secondary source." Well since it should be on a case by case basis and not "This source is infallible because they're typically reliable" AND you've admitted directly that the video should not be usable as a source the most the article should read is "He mumbles something incoherently". The article isn't about ABC's take on Ricardo Lopez, it's about the events as they happened and were recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't say he mumbles something incoherently. The source says "His last words were: 'This is for you.'" Please don't add things that are not in the cited source, and please don't add your own interpretation of the primary source. That's called original research, which is not allowed.— Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But the source is wrong, or at the very least so unclear as to the point that so many people hear 'victory!' that a note has to be made of not changing it to 'victory!'. The article states it matter of factly that he said "This is for you" and erroneously cites the ABC article as a source. Again, this should be on a case by case basis if the purpose of wiki is to be as accurate as possible. If it's just about aligning with secondary sources, I can go find conspiracy theory sites to cite and edit the 9/11 page to say it was all an inside job. It should be about accuracy, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a source that the audio is "unclear as to the point that so many people hear 'victory!'". And before you ask, me saying it sounds muffled is not a source. And would you please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Bmf 051 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

The fact that so many people heard "Victory!" that someone felt the need to add "Do not put victory here" to the source of the article. If you saying the video is so muffled as not to be usable is not a source, then I can use it as a source to say he said victory. You saying that my editing the article based on my interpretation is invalid sounds a lot like original research to me. You're being exceedingly argumentative over not a whole lot. You're fighting tooth and nail to keep the page inaccurate or mistaken. You don't really seem to have the good of the site in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.201.44 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying the video is a WP:PRIMARY source, and that is why you can't use it to support your interpretation. "You saying that my editing the article based on my interpretation is invalid sounds a lot like original research to me." WP:OR applies to article content, not to editor discussions. "You're being exceedingly argumentative over not a whole lot. You're fighting tooth and nail to keep the page inaccurate or mistaken. You don't really seem to have the good of the site in mind." This is a boomerang, if I've ever seen one. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 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.

Edit templates to use flat icons

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.

---

ok so a while back the protection icons were edited to use flat icons instead of the old shaded ones, would it be a good idea to edit other high use templates to use flat icons? like update template:notice to use File:OOjs_UI_icon_information-progressive.svg sorry if thats a bit specific but you see what i mean Yvzcvtp (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yvzcvtp, a similar question question was recently asked here at the Village Pump - the correct place to suggest changes to Wikipedia (AN is for issues which admins in particular should know about/are needed for, the Village Pump is for proposals). Giraffer (munch) 12:22, 13 September 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.

Unblock request from User:Umberto Bottura

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.

---

• Umberto Bottura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umberto Bottura

This user was blocked in 2012 for abuse of multiple accounts. Since that time, they've gone on to edit constructively at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he has a generally good track record.

The administrator who originally issued the block is no longer active. Another admin who is familiar with the case has not responded in over a week. So I open the matter up to discussion here. Based on their track record at pt.wiki, I feel comfortable extending the user a second chance. However, I don't feel comfortable acting unilaterally. What do other admins think about the request for unblocking? Is there other information in this case that I'm not aware of? —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unless further information comes to light to suggest Umberto Bottura would be disruptive, I support unblock as per long history of constructive participation on sister projects. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock Eight years of positive contributions to Portuguese Wikipedia plus a promise to not abuse multiple accounts is more than enough for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• No issues identified on checkuser review. Support unblock - that they've continued to contribute in a positive way for 8 years on other projects bodes well for success here. Risker (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Seems OK to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be more confident of Umberto's ability to follow enwiki policies if he hadn't been spoonfed the English text for his appeal - w:pt:Special:Diff/59223032 - but his intentions seem to be for the good of the wiki, support Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Looks good after such a long time contributing to another Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 14 September 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.

ITN pull 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.

---

Would someone be willing to boldly pull the most recent ITN posting (detection of phosphine on Venus)? Normally, I wouldn't bring this here, but this is a wholly inappropriate post and I think the longer this stays up, the worse it reflects on Wikipedia. The link to the discussion is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Phosphine detected on Venus.

The short version is that at the very least, the blurb is overly credulous about the significance of some new research. While the supporters certainly outnumbered the opposers, I think the concerns raised should be treated a lot more seriously. Science stories at ITN can be appropriate for significant events (like the New Horizons flyby of Pluto) or the culmination of large collaborations (think the recent black hole image), but not for brand new, speculative research of unknown significance.

Please please undo the damage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I would support pulling it. It was reported in radio news bulletins by the BBC yesterday, but in similarly such credulous terms that I can't believe it went through the usually very good (or at least better than most news outlets) BBC science team. This is simply a detection of a chemical whose presence is of unknown cause, but one of the possible causes is life. It is certainly not scientific proof, or even strong evidence, that life exists on Venus. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose pulling as a gross violation of the norms of WP:ITN. This is already being discussed at WP:ITNC, which is the correct venue. -- Calidum 17:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Admins may not "boldly" pull ITN items (save for gross BLP violations or the like). The correct place to discuss this is ITNC or WP:ERRORS.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me. It's not an error, so ITNC is the place to discuss it and if you don't get your way then WP:DROPTHESTICK.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This was a major snafu, and I wanted to get some outside eyes on this as soon as possible because of the time-sensitive nature of this kind of problem at ITN. I don't really participate at ITN, and I don't know all the little ins and outs of how to get things done, but this was a serious problem and I wanted to bring attention to it quickly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN is not your de facto committee for overturning consensus, and you are grossly overstating the amount of "damage" this is doing to Wikipedia, if any. In fact, you're not even defining the extent to which its credibility might supposedly be harmed. The New York Times ran an article about this science story, for God's sakes. You don't think they're concerned about credibility?--WaltCip-(talk) 18:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we must stick to what the sources say, otherwise we would fall foul of WP:OR, the ITN analogue of that being that we become our own news organization to rival the BBC, CNN etc. So, it would no longer be ITN but "WikiNews" . We could then make Deacon Vorbis our senior science editor. So, we must live with the fact that the BBC may not always report things 100% accurately, but that is how it appears in the news. And we are free to use the peer reviewed article on which the BBC report is based on. At the end of the day, the facts underlying the report is that no simple chemical process that can produce the observed amounts of phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere is known. The only known way to get to the detected amounts is via complex industrial processes, and via biological processes and such biological processes are also complex industrial processes with the industrial machinery replaced by Nature's nanotech variants. This also means that if the phosphine turns out to be non-biological in origin then that would also be a significant discovery. Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait. Are you telling me phosphine was not detected on Venus? --Deepfriedokra (talk)

It says, "Astronomers report the detection of phosphine, a possible signature of organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus". I fail to see hos that damages Wikipedia. Having said that, there is a venue for addressing what looks to me like a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 15 September 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.

Edit Request Assistance Requested

Hi all,

Our requested edit backlog is becoming extremely lengthy (97 atm), including some that have been there more than 7 weeks.

Almost all on the list are either non-protected or semi-protected, so can be handled by any experienced editor.

Some requests are rapid, either easily declined or accepted. However, much of the backlog is due to individuals making a large number of partially supported requests at once, and so individual review can be somewhat tedious.

However, if we can get 50 of us to do 2 each, we'll be done.

Huge thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Daniel Prude

Eyes at Killing of Daniel Prude please. Already made reports at the other venues, but situation is ongoing. Zindor (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Visit WP:AN/I HeartGlow ^(talk) 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked ThrowPrude21 for edit warring. Check my work please. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are here, WP:NOTBUREAU. Looks to me like ThrowPrude21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was edit warring and refusing to discuss with several editors opposed to their changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting context from @Coffeeandcrumbs, Serols, AussieWikiDan, and Nomoskedasticity: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The way the user came in like a train, citing primary sources on imgur.com and no communications. I think we can assume NOTHERE. It was difficult to engage with the user. This is a sensitive page. Even if Daniel Prude is dead, the article is governed by BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted some pov additions by an I.P, who then stopped editing, this new account immediately turned up and started making edits of the same POV. I reverted them also. I initally filed a request at WP:RPP while the I.P was active, i posted a warning on IPs talk page. After the ThrowPrude21s additions started i filed a report at WP:AIV regarding them and the I.P. I went and had my dinner and came back and saw it was still going on and posted here at WP:AN. I tried to share the reverts with other editors, but i'm fairly certain i broke WP:3RR. Later i posted on the article talk page asking ThrowPrude21 to discuss the additions, in a further attempt to descalate. Zindor (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User had 31 edits since 2020-09-10 @ 17:12:14, all to Killing of Daniel Prude. No attempt to communicate, even via edit summaries. No response to warnings on talk. Has now responded to my block, and I have made it partial on the article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for blocking. I was patrolling recent changes and noticed this user was removing and replacing content. Addition of details regarding an autopsy without citation (later with unreliable source) made me believe this was against BLP policy and needed to be removed repeatedly. He ignored warnings given. AussieWikiDan (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks y'all. (Article now semi-protected.) User now partially blocked and attempting to make case for inclusion on talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv

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.

---

After reviewing the entire Kiev/Kyiv naming discussion, Wugapodes (left) drafts a closing statement. - Lev!vich

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

There's a RM discussion at talk:Kiev that seems to be getting distinctly bad-tempered. Discussion on that page is dominated by a handful of people and it looks very much as if they resent the intrusion of others into their space. There are a couple of admins watching but there will need to be an uninvolved close, and I suspect a few reminders about playing the ball, not the man, might be required in the mean time. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I could be willing to do an uninvolved close, however I've never done that before. And on such a large and controversial topic fear that the simple act of closing this may involve much more time than I currently have available. Canterbury Tail talk 19:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. This will indeed need a skilled closer and it would be good to have someone ready to close at an appropriate point. I hadn't checked in on the discussion for a couple days but will remind people about sharing the discussion space. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JzG, Canterbury Tail, and Barkeep49: I want to emphasize that unfortunately the aforementioned "RM discussion that is getting distinctly bad-tempered" is not a new phenomenon that has only started during July-Sep 2020 RM request, but is something that has been going on for the last 10+ years and has been perpetrated mostly by the same editors. I have pointed it out on July 5, but since my post regarding it was regrettably removed from Talk:Kiev by El_C on that same day (on July 5), I am re-posting it here, so that those who had not had a chance to see it on July 5 could do so now. p.s. Full disclosure: Barkeep49 blocked me for 3 weeks from editing Talk:Kiev from Sep 9 till Oct 1 for disruptive editing on Talk:Kiev.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Three months and almost 100 comments? I don't see what we'll get from a few more days open other than more bickering and (partial) blocks. I just went ahead and closed it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended comment regarding continuous harassment of those editors perceived to be 'enemies' on Talk:Kiev/naming and Talk:Kiev.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I ask an uninvolved admin like @Barkeep49: or any other to please intervene and stop continuous WP:Harassment and WP:Battleground actions by a group of pro-Kiev editors against editors they consider their "enemies". I spend a few hours reading this current July 2020 discussion Talk:Kiev as well as reading through the 15 pages of Talk:Kiev/naming (sadly, no one can ever give me that time back) and by analyzing those discussions I came to an unsettling conclusion: a group of pro-Kiev editors in the last 10+ years have been engaged in WP:gross incivilityl, and often outright WP:Harassing, behaviour against editors who were perceived "enemies" in Talk:Kiev/naming discussions; this included a continuous use of xenophobic and racist slurs against editors who were considered Ukrainians, such as Ukrainian trolls, Ukrainian nationalists, Ukrainian crusaders (and yes you can show xenophobic/racist behaviour not only against people of certain skin colour or religious group, but also to an ethnically-linguistic group such as Ukrainians; and yes, in today's enwiki lingo the term 'nationalist' has become a slur). Please note that these pro-Kiev editors often didn't just use these uncivil and insulting slurs to Ukrainians as people generally, but more often than not they tried to pretend that they are addressing all Ukrainians, but in fact were directing their harassment to specific editors on Talk:Kiev/naming, thus directly violating WP:No personal attacks policy. Here are diffs-examples of usage of these xenophobic slurs against specific editors on Talk:Kiev during this July discussion ([58], [59], [60] by User:TaivoLinguist against editors @Chrzwzcz, Levivich, and Mzajac:). Furthermore, upon reading the 15 pages of Talk:Kiev/naming I saw that this wasn't a 'one-off' behaviour during this July 2020 discussion, but that there was actually a very troubling pattern of this harassing behaviour for the last 10+ years on Talk:Kiev/naming perpetrated principally by the same editors that are currently taking part in the July 2020 discussion against any "enemies" whom they've labeled Ukrainian trolls/nationalists/crusaders (examples: User:TaivoLinguist directly harassing User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava in 2015 by labeling them 'Ukrainian nationalist' ([61]) same as using the same harassment term on User:ROMANTYS in 2018 ([62]; also troubling is the claim by TaivoLinguist in 2019 that all those users whose name contains Ukrainian spelling conventions, belong to that enemy group of Ukrainian nationalists [63] - what kind of harassment statement is that?); what's even more troubling is that user User:TaivoLinguist wasn't acting alone, but instead a number of other editors showed troublingly similar-to-Tag teaming behavioural patterns, where they would chime in to support TaivoLinguist against those perceived as their "enemies"; including, among others an involved then-sysop User:NeilN, who also repeatedly harassed those users by calling them Ukrainian nationalists ([64], [65] in 2015), editor User:Khajidha ([66] in 2016), or User:Paul Siebert ([67], [68], [69] in 2018). It is also troubling that over the years a number of sysops (some seemingly uninvolved, some seemingly involved) repeated the same harassment claims of "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy" (which is not at all in Wikipedia spirit) which created a feeling of enwiki adminship support to those pro-Kiev editors who were continuously harassing users by labeling them with the same Ukrainian trolls/nationalists/crusaders slurs (examples include remarks from sysop Deacon_of_Pndapetzim ([70] in 2008) sysop Richwales ([71] in 2014), sysop Necrothesp ([72] in 2014), sysop Ezhiki ([73] in 2014), sysop Ymblanter ([74] in 2019), sysop Dlohcierekim/Deepfriedokra ([75] in 2019). Equally troubling is that when this whole harassment of 'enemy editors' by labeling them Ukrainian trolls/nationalists/crusaders started on Talk:Kiev/naming in 2007-2008, not a single enwiki admin intervened to put a stop to such harassment (and in fact the opposite was true, and sysops actually fueled it, as was shown above by the actions of a sysop from 2008); note that on archive pages 7, 8 and 9 one can see that in 2007-2008 such Ukrainian nationalists harassing language was used more than 20 times with no reaction whatsover from en wiki sysops. In general, after reading the current Talk:Kiev July 2020 discussion as well as the 15 pages of discussions on Talk:Kiev/naming from 2007-2019 and seeing with my own eyes countless examples of this harassing behaviour of pro-Kiev editors, and often times that harassing behaviour resembled in a troublesome way Tag teaming behaviour, I noticed that it eventually resulted in two very series violations of fundamental enwiki principles: 1) Through harassment of 'enemy' editors by labeling them Ukrainian trolls/nationalists/crusaders over the course of the last 10+ years, the group of pro-Kiev editors was able to successfully force out any editors they considered 'enemies' out of discussion (often times with a help of highly involved admin(s) who would at times even block 'enemies' of the pro-Kiev editors. This resulted in serious distortion to the normal WP:Consensus process (in recent years, since about 2014/2015 this was primarily done by highly involved sysop Ymblanter trying to silence editors through harassment (such as him issuing a highly not-in-good-faith accusation in 2018 against User:Roman Spinner claiming that they were engaged in WP:Canvassing [76] (the alleged "canvassing" consisted in a regular good-faith announcement that a Kyiv/Kiev namechange discussion is taking place on Talk:Kiev/naming on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ukraine [77]) and then in User:TaivoLinguist trying to silence User:Roman Spinner by following up on Ymblanter accusation and threatening them with WP:Block for "saying that Kiev spelling is based on Russian-based spelling" [78]. Sysop Ymblanter re-enforced this harassing methodology in 2018-2019 by threatening those pro-Kyiv editors labeled as 'Ukrainian nationalists' with threats like (similarly to how Ymblanter tried to silence Roman Spinner by threatening them with the same argument in 2018): I am afraid I will be looking for arbitration enforcement prohibiting you to comment on Kiev vs Kyiv. You manage to disrupt every discussion by endlessly repeating the same mantra which was many times rejected by consensus ([79]); editor Roman Spinner stopped short of calling such tactics from Ymblanter for what they were, WP:harassment, and instead called them censorship politically-inspired censorship, especially in view of the fact that such censorship would be singling out one particular commenter, while the endless disruptive repetition of mantras by all other participants in these discussions would remain unimpeded ([80]) 2) The tactics of TaivoLinguist and other pro-Kiev editors (given highly involved sysop Ymblanter's support in 2018-2019 through silencing, harassment and blocking those they labeled 'Ukrainian nationalists') culminated by the end 2019 in a highly distorted situation: while reading those 15 pages of Talk:Kiev/naming discussion I acknowledge that I did see that there was no consensus to move Kiev to Kyiv in 2007-2019, primarily because folks rightly pointed out that most of the reliable sources such as BBC/The Wall Street Journal/The New York Times have not yet switched from Kiev to Kyiv and therefore Kyiv usage hadn't surpassed Kiev usage. However, the situation changed drastically in the middle of 2019 with the Trump-Zelensky Ukrainegate and the subsequent change of virtually all major English media-outlets and their respective styleguides from Kiev to Kyiv by Oct/Nov 2019. What followed looked like some bizzare not-in-good-faith organized attempt by pro-Kiev editors to stop even the possibility of the article being moved from Kiev to Kyiv by all means possible: they initiated a Moratorium to stop RM move even though 2019 was actually the time when Consensus for the first time shifted and starting from late 2019 most folks supported the move from Kiev to Kyiv (as was eloquently summarized later during our July 2020 discussion by User:Mzajac [81] the fact that virtually all major English media outlets and their stylebooks switched from Kiev to Kyiv, per various relevant WP policies (WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:PLACE, WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:WIAN), was in fact already enough to move the article from Kiev to Kyiv, and the arguments of the pro-Kiev editors of using Google search results were in fact misleading and should not have been used per WP:GOOGLE). Yet, probably, the most egregious violation of WP:Consensus done during those Moratorium discussions in Oct-Nov 2019 by the pro-Kiev editors was, in fact, creating a false consensus summary that was in fact not representative of the actual Consensus: specifically, the egregious violation of Consensus was in the fact that in their Consensus summary those editors inored that at least two of the Moratorium disussion-participants, User:Chrzwzcz and User:Roman_Spinner, had asked that the ban covers only RMs, while procedural discussions of Kiev/Kyiv during those 6 months should NOT be labled as 'forum" and should be allowed as that would be in the spirit of Wikipedia ([82], [83], [84]); this request from 2 out of 5 most active participants in that discussion was fully ignored and the way moratorium was inacted during those 6 months, was to fully 'prohibit any procedural discussions'. Ultimately this whole moratorium most likely disruped the article by preserving a title that has become an indefensible fossil (as was rightly pointed out by Mzajac [85]). Given the arguments descibed above, I ask an uninvolved admin like @Barkeep49: or any other one to please 1) add the arguments I summarized above to the case that is being presented for the ArbCom, as I believe they are relevant 2) @Barkeep49: thank you for notifying me that the article Kyiv is related to Eastern Europe and therefore WP:ARBEE policies are applicable here [86]; please consider a similar notification to those editors that have shown a pattern of possible WP:Tag teaming and WP:Harassing behaviour during the lifetime of Talk:Kiev/naming discussion, but particularly those involved in harassing activities over the course of the last year, since 2019. Despite the fact that all of them are highly experienced editors/sysops, they show an alarming trend of ignoring WP:ARBEE and possibly engaging in behind-the-scene activities that triggered WP:ARBEE in 2007 in the first place.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 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.

Rubbish

I think we could manage without Special:Contributions/Faktasy. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Well that was a thing. Page deleted and the user blocked for both NOTHERE and a very likely sock of User:SausagerollRevolution. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

Prompted by the above discussion, I fully protected the Hagia Sophia article due to an edit war. The full protection was intended in part to stimulate discussion at the talk page over the issue. So far, no meaningful discussion has taken place. Now, I don't like preventing constructive editing for any longer than necessary. So, what options do we have here? Do I unprotect the article and hope that the edit war doesn't break out again? My feeling is that the opponents will resume battle. Do I issue a partial ban on thoses involved and open the article up to normal editing? Or leave the article fully protected until some discussion takes place? Open to other suggestions. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: unprotect the article and if editors are still disruptive, partial block those editors from the article (but not the talk page). Now that we have partial blocks, I can see very little advantage to full protecting any article. Lev!vich 16:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, the old rope trick eh? Well. I've unprotected and issued a warning on the talk page. I've got the article watchlisted in any case. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks Mjroots. Yes, sort of the old rope trick, but not so much out a "rope" concern, but out of concern for all the other editors who may want to edit a page. My view on the "block/protection algorithm" is that protection should only be used when blocking is not feasible, e.g. semi protect if it's disruption from multiple IPs; ECP if it's disruption by multiple newly-registered accounts. The duration should be the minimum reasonably necessary to prevent disruption, and a "rule of thumb" is that it should be roughly equivalent to the duration of the disruption. So if the article has been disrupted over a number of days, protection should last days or a week. If it's been continuously disrupted for months, the protection might need to be months. The most extreme cases, e.g. vandalism honeypots like Faggot and Nigger, might required indefinite protection (which both those articles have been under for 10+ years, with obvious good reason). Full protection should be used extremely sparingly. I totally understand and agree with the "mercy full protection", which is used to spare having to block numerous editors in good standing, e.g. to avoid messing up editors' clean block logs. In such cases, the full protection should be of very short duration, e.g. 24-72 hrs, maybe one week tops, just enough to "throw a bucket of cold water" on the dispute. After that expires, if any of the same editors return to disruption, then they should be partially blocked (from the article only, not the talk page), as they no longer deserve mercy. (I guess that's the rope part.) The first partial block should be for a few days or a week; long enough to require engaging at the talk page. If a second partial block is required, it should be indefinite, lifted only by a proper unblock request showing that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. If an editor is disruptive on a talk page (e.g. bludgeoning, incivility), then they should be partially blocked from the talk page as well. A full block should only be used when an editor's disruption extends to multiple pages. Per this "algorithm", indefinite full protection should never be used. I'm mulling over proposing a policy change to WP:PP to bar indefinite full protection, but I want to see how the above thread resolves first. Lev!vich 18:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

    • @Levivich: obviously I didn't intend for the article to stay locked for more than a month. Had there been some discussion then it could have been unlocked pretty quickly. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Exactly, I would say let the protection expire and if the same editors restur to disruption block (possibly partially) without any future warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I see, you have already done it. A good decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

backlog

Hi admins. There are currently over 134 requests for speedy deletion, which I thought should have attention drawn to as these have been kicking around for several days. I believe User:Only had also pointed out some others, so I apologize if things are slowing down during the covid pandemic. Naleksuh (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh, thanks for the ping, it's under 50 now. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for unblock backlog - 80+ to review

There are current 81 requests for unblock at Category:Requests_for_unblock. Many of them have been ones that most of the usual unblock request reviewers have already weighed in on, so fresh eyes are needed since we can't review the same user. Please consider lending a hand. only (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. I'll do that today. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently in the mid-60's if anyone's able to help chip away at this backlog. At least 20 have been without comment since August. only (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My administrative "ban"

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.

---

Per Destroyeraa's message to me at my talk page, I am here to request partial "unbanning" of my account. (User talk:Chicdat#Your administrative ban) I know I've edited strangely a bit on Wikipedia, and that I "jumped into the deep end too early", and that I've made mistakes more than a few times.

For details, see below
Feel free to update this

My Timeline of Disruption & Wikibreaks

• APRIL 8, 2020: My not-so-much-of-an-RfA.
• APRIL 14, 28, 29, and May 1: WP:EWLOing.
• EARLY MAY, 2020: Misuse of page mover right.
• MAY 14, 2020: Misuse of rollback in an edit war.
• MAY 16, 2020: An "FAR" for 2005 Azores subtropical storm.
• MAY 22, 2020: WP:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten seeing the results almost made me cry.
• LATE MAY, 2020: A bunch of reverting and warning non-vandals cluttering up my talk page.
• JUNE 2, 2020: Nominating Cyclone Nisarga for A11.
• JUNE 5, 2020: Repeatedly submitting Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011 for AfC.
• JUNE 7, 2020: Closing the AfD for Tropical cyclones in 2010.
• JUNE 14, 2020: Reverting not-vandalism (sorry not-vandals whom I reverted).
• JUNE 15, 2020: Indirectly requesting rollback by saying "Huggle is cool".
• JUNE 16, 2020: Merging Cyclone Sigma.
• JUNE 18, 2020: Sockpuppet investigation for an innocent IP.
• JUNE 18, 2020: Giving Yellow Evan an improper warning.
• JUNE 18 – 19, 2020: WP:RFP/C messages to withdrawn users.
• JUNE 19, 2020: The Bbb23 barnstar disaster.
• JUNE 19 – JULY 1: I disappear. During that time, I learn how to make edits without them being immediately reverted. Or so I thought.
• JULY 4, 2020: Moving an RfA.
• JULY 9, 2020: Unlinking List of Pacific hurricane seasons.
• JULY 28, 2020: Relisting.

I know, that's a lot. But since July 28, I've quieted down, and, slowly but surely, climbed back into some administrative areas. I mean by partial as Twinkle/Huggle/Redwarn warning vandals, check. Reporting to AIV, check. AN + ANI, check. Some CSD, check. I understand I'm not an administrator, and will never be one (I don't even want to, but that doesn't matter), but I am responsible for both blocks of all IPs on the range 2a02:c7f:766f:de00::/64, one by Only, and one by Materialscientist. I won't !vote in RfA's, I won't participate in blocks/unblocks, I won't edit RfA, I won't request permissions (except maybe rollback – to warn vandals), and I will never, ever, ever, do the reason for this not-so-much of the ban; I won't relist or close AfD, RfD, FfD, CfD, TfD, and MfD discussions.

Need I say more? I kinda miss the Wikipedia: namespace.

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait. What? You kind of buried the lede. You caused the currently active block on the range 2a02:c7f:766f:de00::/64? Then you're evading that block right now. I mean, points for honesty, I guess, but you're evading a 1 month block and just listed more than a dozen things you've been disruptive on in the last six months, and the disruption from the IP is just 2 weeks old. Is there some reason I'm not aware of that we shouldn't block this account until the IP block ends? Or, possibly longer for really long term disruption? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) I see, you meant you "caused" it in the sense that you reverted them (and I assume reported them?) Still, that's a lot of disruption and not a lot of time since. I oppose any change. But, of course, no longer recommend a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think they mean that they got the range banned, rather than that they are the editor in question: presumably this is what Chicdat is referring to, and also this. I'm not entirely sure what Chicdat is asking for though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I just e/c'd with you to modify that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for the ec. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No. My IP range starts with 2601:18e. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Chicdat, the fact that you've put the word "ban" in quotes is an indication that there isn't anything formal that you can appeal against. This discussion has editors such as Barkeep49, Beyond My Ken and Jasper Deng advising you not to relist AfDS or take part in unblock discussions but it's all voluntary. You said "I'll think of it as an editing restriction" but it isn't one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've just wasted time investigating this to try to find the actual ban, its details, and what actions are prohibited. But I can't find any ban, as P-K3 indicates. Chicdat, if there's actually a ban formulated anywhere, show us where. But if you're just following some voluntary restrictions based on advice you have been given, the only one who can lift those is yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• I can confirm that Chicdat is not, to my understanding, under any formal ban (i.e. their pledge did not get entered as a voluntarily editing restriction). So they are free to resume some admin activities if they want. But I also will note that if they hadn't taken the advice offered by myself and others to step back from troublesome areas that my next step would have been a block. So I would encourage them to be thoughtful/careful as they resume such activities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• I second what Barkeep49 said. My personal advice is that it is too soon to be returning to these areas, but as there is no formal sanction in place, it's only up to you, Chicdat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• As a rulee of thumb, if I can immediately remember a banning discussion just from the username, I'm inclined to think it's too soon. In this case the recent history of stuff that skirts the ban is a great argument that this is the case: really wanting to do a thing you're banned from doing has never been a compelling reason to lift the ban, and doing things as close to it as you can without violating the ban is a great reason to interpret it more broadly. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I see that one and a half months after an issue is NOT enough time for it to be considered "old". Feel free to close this, since I am withdrawing because of intense lack of supporting here. Nope, I don't think that I'll be going back here until January 28, exactly six months after this relisting matter. So long, and thanks for all the fish, 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hear what I'm going for? Please close this. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:24, 18 September 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.

RE: RedWarn

As AN has been a center for other RedWarn discussions, I thought I'd inform you all of a discussion regarding RedWarn being hosted off-Wiki on WMF servers at WP:VPT. Ed talk! 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

At Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam there has been a very long dispute started on 20 May, 2020 by editor Vice regent, who 15 minutes after leaving a message against the current name renamed the page to “Concubinage in Islam”. Most editors have found that the name “concubinage” is not well suited to describe the institution of “sexual slavery” in Islam and the dispute formally ended on 8 September 2020, almost four months later, with the decision of keeping the current name.

After the dispute was over, someone proposed a split in order to have two pages, “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam”, and the discussion is still ongoing. However there is a lack of consensus also about this split, since it is not clear what the difference between “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam” would be – concubinage in Islam is allowed only with sexual slaves and concubinage per se is a fairly neutral term, not linked to slavery (today is even a synonym of “civil union” – see [87], [88]).

At this point editor Vice regent has started to edit massively the page Concubinage (not in Islam, just plain concubinage), which barely contained any link to slavery, using as only source a dictionary of slavery (WP:POVSOURCE) and with the only purpose of linking concubinage to slavery (WP:UNDUE).

Is this not a destructive approach to editing Wikipedia? Is this not a typical case of Civil POV pushing? Should not a dispute be really over at some point? --Grufo (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider WP:BOOMERANG. Grufo is currently blocked for edit-warring on the above article. Many users have raised concerns about their behavior at IncidentArchive1044. Concerns about incivility have been raised at IncidentArchive1046, their talk page and by an admin. By my estimate Grufo spends more than 90% of their time on wikipedia following me around to various articles and entering into content disputes with me. (In August they made 520 edits, of which <40 were unrelated to me, and in September they've made 214 edits of which <20 are unrelated to me).VR _talk 14:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This complaint is not about me, it is about your recent edits at Concubinage. If you wish you can open a new complaint completely dedicated to me, pasting verbatim or even expanding the text above. --Grufo (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not edit other people's comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing others' comments. --Grufo (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Which states never (in bold) to edit a comment to change it's meaning, including striking it. Off-topic posts can be collapsed or, under specific circumstances, removed. But, as there is no immunity for reporters (i.e. scrutiny here is two-way), VR's comments are on-topic. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad. It does say not to use <del> but to use {{Collapse top}} instead – I should have seen it. Could you explain how Vice regent's comments are “on-topic in this discussion”? --Grufo (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The conduct of all involved parties in a dispute is opened to examination. This keeps discussion in one place, rather than across multiple threads. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Meh, this looks like a case of both of you editing poorly. Vice regent should not have edited against the present article structure to make their content primary in the article. The article is by location and then chronology so just adding their edits to the top of the top of the article was not advisable. At the same time your arguments against the actual content seem to be little more than stonewalling. Please come up with arguments that are specific and actionable or acknowledge that Vice regent can add content in the proper section of the article. AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to explain everything in Talk:Concubinage, and yet the POV fury is still not over. More than bringing arguments in the clearest possible way, I do not know what else to do. --Grufo (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AlmostFrancis for your input. Could you (and anyone who reads this) comment at Talk:Concubinage. I would be happy to receive feedback on how I can better integrate that content into the article.VR _talk 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to formally vacate general 1RR sanctions in the Abortion topic area, leaving the existing standard discretionary sanctions scheme in place. Community statements are welcome at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed arbitration motion regarding Abortion 1RR

I have a problem

There is an ongoing discussion about disputed content on Talk:Indian subcontinent#Alternative Terms. In the middle of the discussion suddenly two editors appeared and started removing content in dispute, along with other content that they have an objection to. I have reverted both (barely over two days), with invitations to participate in the discussion (neither editor participated yet). But since this is an area under discretionary sanctions, my actions may not have been the wisest. Looking for some advise, and a pair of eyes to watch for any untoward disruption (including any disruption by me). I am sure if I have done any damage, it is not too late to undo the damage. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. I fully protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. Maybe now this can be sifted. Don't know what other scrutiny is needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If the dispute is not settled in the current discussion (it is dying out anyways), then there's AfC and DRN. As long as disruptions don't pop up the community will have enough opprtunity to mediate and decide. I hope the length of protection is enough to give it some time to achieve a consensus without a battle. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion about user name

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.

---

Looking for a second opinion about a user name issue. A user who previously went by Angus1986 for over a years was renamed a few days ago to AngusMEOW, which appears to be an effort to copy AngusWOOF, down to the signatures:

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)

AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail)

When I saw this username, I legitimately thought it might have been a secondary account for AngusWOOF, so I asked them about it. Note the recent user page changes that feel similar to AngusWOOF's user page, including "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog." vs. "This user is a cat." I know there's no policy on failing to be original, but this is not much different from most of the impostor accounts we deal with, and it doesn't feel right to me. I've asked AngusMEOW to change their user name and to stop editing until they do so, and I want to get a second opinion about whether that's appropriate or not. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment : This was Cyphoidbomb's comment on my talk page : Hi there, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and I am of the opinion that your username is in violation of our username policy as it appears to be "homage" to user AngusWOOF's handle. While this may have been done with a good spirit, you shouldn't be using a name that is thematically similar to another editor's, especially when the similarity seems calculated down to the capitalisation and signature formatting. Please change your username. Since you already appear to have done this, you should just go through those steps again, and please do not edit until it has been changed. Thank you.

I replied to them that it wasn't the violation of WP:IMPERSONATOR : these were reply to them I understand you have come across my name when you saw my conversation on the talk page of Ponyo, and even raised a question with them on their talk page(Ponyo didn't reply, hope replied over here), and so far none of the admins or any other editors I interacted with had any problem with my username, even user AngusWOOF himself. My previous username was Angus1986, so the name is the same, I just replaced 1986 with MEOW after I saw AngusWOOF's username at Aliza Ayaz's creators talk page, I don't have any other options that I can think of, I really like MEOW and I do love cats, and Angus is my name, the usage of similar signature formatting isn't in the Wikipedia:Username policy. I don't find this to be a violation of WP:IMPERSONATOR, unless it was like AngusWOOFhomage or AngusWOOF2 or WOOFAngusWOOF or Angus1986WOOF, all of this would be similar. If you still think my username is inappropriate, could you please raise a concern on AN/I? Moreover, asking me to not edit just for this when my edits are constructive doesn't seem right. But, I will refrain from editing until I hear from other admins. please check User:Luk3 and User:LuK3, a clear example of having a similar username. None of them received warnings such as "change your username or else you cannot edit

Changing of user page and signature was inspired by AngusWOOF but I had no intentions to impersonate AngusWOOF, besides cat and dog are two different animals, targetting just me when there are other users with more similar names and asking me to not edit until I change my username, I found that to be inappropriate from an admin. It would have been better for Cyphoidbomb to first raise an issue over here and then ask me to stop editing, instead of asking me to stop editing (just because of their individual perception of it not being right), they only posted this here when I asked them to raise a concern over here. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 01:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so you're clear, see WP:BADNAME#Talk to the user. There was nothing inappropriate about my encouraging you to change your copycat (literally) nickname. As to whether asking you not to edit until you did so was an overreach, that remains to be established, but something doesn't sit well with me, seeing someone copy another editor so closely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Ritchie333, Mgasparin, RoySmith, and Rosguill: : Cyphoidbomb accuse me of being an impostor of AngusWOOF. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 01:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Depends on what you mean by "appropriate". No, I don't think it is appropriate. If this was a bad faith editor, this would be the nail in the coffin and I'd block indef. But apparently this is a productive editor who is just lacking in respect for others' social norms. I'm not sure this is worth a formal sanction; I'm inclined to just think slightly less of him and move on with my life. Perhaps you could get him to put a prominent "I am not related to AngusWOOF, I'm just copying him" notice on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

AngusMEOW, Why am I being pinged to this sillyness? No, I don't think copying somebody else is a good thing. Yeah, Floquenbeam has it right that you should put a notice on your user page that you're not related to Woof. Now, let's all find more important things to be doing. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, it was all just overwhelming for me. I now posted a notice on my user page. :) Thank you! AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 02:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not think such a notice is sufficient. I think that there is a genuine likelihood that other editors will assume that this is an alternative account for AngusWOOF, especially because the capitalization pattern and the signatures are identical. It is bizarre, it is creepy, it is misleading and it ought to be changed voluntarily, in my opinion. If the editor refuses to change it voluntarily, then I think the next step is to discuss sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. The user should perceive that several people are concerned about the confusing username and therefore should agree to change it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I legitimately thought that AngusWOOF might have had another account, and so I had to ask WOOF about it. That's a waste of editor time. Further, while I agree that I might be cynical and jaded, it is very rare for someone to copy another editor so closely. I'll leave it at that, but something does not sit well with me in this scenario. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, this needs to be changed/reverted. It's a clear copycat; even if you call it "homage" it's still a copycat. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• The username is (IMO) minimally acceptable, though changing it would be welcome. The signature similarities (combined with the username) are not acceptable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to change the signature if someone is willing to help me out with it, I wasn't able to figure out how to create a unique signature except for to change the colors of it. You can see me asking help to Cullen328 over here -> [89] and then finally Oshwah helped to fix the error when I was trying to get the signature style of Cullen328. My request for help with Oshwah [90]. My intention is not to mislead anyone or being creepy at all. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 02:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• What is in the mind of an editor cannot be known. What is plain, however, is that the name and signature are easily interpreted as trolling or harassment. The editor needs to change both within the next 24 hours to avoid an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender, Wugapodes, Newyorkbrad, Johnuniq, and AngusWOOF: - I did not intend to be a copy cat, you can see me seeking for help at Cullen328 with signature on their talk page over here -> [91] I did not intend to be a copycat, I am not a creep, I wasn't intending to mislead anyone. The accusations are wrong. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 02:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being a creep or intending to mislead, and I'm not sure that anyone else did either. But there's an emerging consensus that your username and signature will have the foreseeable effect of confusing people, and therefore that you should change them before you become too invested in them, in order to avoid that result. What is your objection to doing so? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

According to this edit "I don't have any other options that I can think of, I really like MEOW and I do love cats, and Angus is my name". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@AngusMEOW: I don't think anyone is accusing you (at least, I'm not). The worry is that even if you mean no harm, others may not see it the same way you do. We want to create a welcoming environment and what is an homage for one can be harassment for another. None of us are looking to punish you---everyone you pinged could have blocked you by now---we want you to learn from the experience and fix the problem so that you can continue building the encyclopedia. I'll look up resources to help you change your username. If you need help with your signature I can do that too. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here Cullen328 threatening to impose block and calling my username creepy I encourage you to change your creepy, misleading username voluntarily. If you do not do so, I will support measures to force you to do so. it is really hurting my feelings very very much. My heart palpitating and head aching, I am accused and threatened for being a creepy imposter by Cullen328 and Cyphoidbomb Not feeling good, this is so much wrong! The comments from Cullen328's are very condescending. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Mm-hm. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb I didn't get what you mean? AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 02:47, 19 September 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.

change the name of

I would like to request the Administrators to change the name from Kūh-e Tīr Māhī to the Kūh-e Zibad because Tīr Māhī is the name of the top peak of the mountain zibad.

the mountain is famous as zibad and its peak is called Tīr Māhī . [92] 08:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Basp1 This issue does not require an administrator; you have already brought it up on the article talk page, which is the correct place. If you get a consensus for your change(or no one objects), you may make a request at requested moves. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Basp1: or just be bold and move the article yourself! You will need to rewrite some parts of the article though, if you do so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock requests--some about a month old.

Hi folks, Requests for unblocks is fairly backlogged with some requests being nearly a month old. Also, for some reason, [93] doesn't appear in that category. Certainly some chance to earn overtime with the mop (what is 1.5x times zero again?) Hobit (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Re David W Richards & 4Square Media

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 write with reference to the content you are allowing to be displayed at this address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Richards

The information contained in the description is false misleading and defamatory.

For example 4Square Media and David W Richards has never been prosecuted by the Australian Tax Office.

We are a highly successful media Company that has no debt, and have paid substantial taxes to the ATO for several years.

You claim that on March 2018, Richards and his company 4Square Media was successfully prosecuted by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) for failing to pay statutory superannuation payments on behalf of his employees.

The ATO was successful in petitioning for the company to be wound up, with Richards settling with the Federal Court at the last minute.

The Company has not been and has never been wound up.

Back in 2018 we had a dispute with the ATO, they issued a claim against 4Square Media after information was presented to them. No issue went to court and there was no hearings as we proved that the basis of their claim was inaccurate. This year 4Square Media will deliver over $400K profit.

In addition you make reference to a Windows story I wrote back several years ago, I claimed that 60% of the Windows OS was set to be rewritten.

This is exactly what has happened with Windows 10.

As for plagiarising content we have never been sued for plagiarising content because the stories we have used on our sites started life as a press release to which there is no copyright for a publication.

When a brand issues a press statement to for example the WSJ and we reference it this is not a breach of copyright nor are we plagiarising content as the same PR is being widely disseminated to multiple media.

Recently we made changes to the inaccurate content but you chose to go back to the original and defamatory content on your web site.

As such I am prepared to brief lawyers to start an action against you as we have attempted to correct the inaccuracies, we also seek the name and links to the original editor who wrote the original inaccurate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoopOZDWR (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously a new user, who doesn't understand the rules. Hope folks will be kind and explain...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well... now they have been blocked. Less than 1.5 hours later. No use to have felt any "hope", of course .Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I was intrigued by Tribe's edit summary and looked at this. I'm not familiar with David W. Richards, but that entire wiki article on him is an WP:ATTACKPAGE. As such, in my opinion it needs to be somehow dealt with, or maybe CSDed/AfDed. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have deleted this article as an attack page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: and @Cullen328: I had already sent thanks for your edits, but decided to write "real words" here. I have never heard of David W. Richards, but I do know what it means to be new, and unfamiliar with our rules. I tend to feel badly for a new editor, who transgresses, unknowingly, and this person was blocked less than 1.5 hours after their mistake of making a "legal threat" (edit, 2:35 21 September, blocked 03:51 21 September. [[94]]. They were "warned" at 2:48 21 September, but this did not give them even 24 hours, to learn or to retract, before they were blocked.

      Nowadays, are legal threats still considered to be "shoot on sight", or do we explain, and offer the editor an opportunity to retract? (I edit on an irregular basis.) Obviously, the good thing is that SL recognized this as an attack page, and that Cullen removed it. But what is to be done about the newbie editor who is blocked? Frankly, it took me a long time (as a new editor) to realize that "indefinite" did not mean "infinite", in WP terms! I perceive that both of you think that ScoopOZDWR may have had a good point to make, regarding the article. Anyway, thanks for listening. Some new editors are, indeed, total asses, but others may have a legitimate point to make. My thanks to you, Softlavender, for reading my edit summary, and for your recommendation, and to Cullen, for taking action to protect a BLP subject. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

      • I'll let an admin answer your question, but in any case, I don't think the new account was here to actually edit, only to remedy what he saw as defamation or whatever, and that issue has been dealt with. It might be nice if someone unblocked him and let him know that the article has been deleted. And also explain to them that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. (At least that would leave a better taste in their mouth about Wikipedia, even though they probably weren't here to build an encyclopedia.) In any case, the problem per se has been solved. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
        • As the very explicit legal threat here hasn't been recanted, it's not possible to unblock the editor. They may still be planning to pursue legal action, especially as they're demanding the identity of the editor responsible for the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
      • People are free to pursue legal action against Wikipedia or any editors, but they can't both do so and be active editors here, it'd be a legal nightmare. So they still have to swear off legal action, no matter how justified, if they want to edit. It's not punitive. WilyD 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, also see this discussion at ANI. Graham87 09:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

New editors sometimes bring important issues to our attention while simultaneously violating policies. In this case, I have deleted the contentious BLP and all the OP has to do to get unblocked is to withdraw the legal threat on their talk page. I doubt they will bother because their goal has been accomplished, but we will see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:10, 21 September 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.

My thanks to all the above, for the conversation, and the informative comments. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:TikTok_app_screenshot.png and File:TikTok_screenshot.PNG

Can an admin revdel the previous revisions of the first file and consider deleting the second file as a high-res duplicate of the first file? The first file is listed at FFD because a new editor unaware of our policy decided to upload higher-res images, which is questionable fair use. Aasim 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm the new editor mentioned above. I have reduced the second file to a low enough resolution to conform with WP:NFCC#3. The reason for retaining and using the second file is that it is a screenshot more up-to-date and better sized in relation to the video thumbnails contained in the screenshot. Thanks. ErithKent (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Both files are currently being discussed at WP:FFD. @Awesome Aasim, please read WP:FORUMSHOP -FASTILY 00:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Revoking my new page reviewer rights

Hello! Can an admin please revoke my new page reviewer rights? I have not done any significant reviewing since I got the rights 2-3 years back and felt that it would be better to just get them revoked so that I can request for the rights only when I find myself having time to devote to it. I followed the guidelines for the correct revokement procedure from WP:NPR, hoping I have posted to the correct place. Please tag me in the reply.--Anbans 585 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Anbans 585. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved admin to close an RFC

See Talk:Falkland Islanders#Request_for_comment

This expired RFC has just been re-opened by the originator, it has rumbled on for weeks with no productive discussion. Request an uninvolved admin to assess consensus and close the RFC. WCM_email 11:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done WCM_email 13:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass delete request

Please delete all the pages linked from User:SDZeroBot/d-batch. They were created accidentally due to a mis-configured script. When you're done, you can delete the d-batch page also. Thanks in advance. – SD0001 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done ♥ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

​You owe me for helping you increase your adminstats! – SD0001 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW if anyone is interested, User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles is what I was trying to set up. – SD0001 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Neat! Yeoman work. Also, wow there are some long ones... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary change to email address for Oversight

The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-llists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified. Risker (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The OTRS upgrade is now complete, and everything is being returned to normal. Risker (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)