Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323

Appealing my 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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Appealing my topic ban

 – ​— Newslinger talk 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing for my topic ban while reporting PatCheng/PCPP/STSC/LucasGeorge being socket puppet, and Bloodofox/HorseEyeJack being POV editing

A. The AE report against me was launched by PatCheng who seems to be socket puppet accounts of User PCPP and User STSC circumventing topic bans

1. PatCheng was active before summer 2006, turned less active in summer 2006 and stopped editing in Sep 2006. But in Jun 2019 PatCheng suddenly showing up reporting me in an ANI case and an AE case after failing in the ANI case, while PCPP created the account in Jun 2006, made first edit in Nov 2006 and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Feb 2011. The editing interests of PatCheng in 2006 and PCPP in 2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (these 2 articles are in both editors' top 5 editing pages). Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China.

2. PatCheng and PCPP edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment: PatCheng's:4 April 2006, 4 Apr 2006, and 23 Mar 2006‎ and PCPP's edits:4 Aug 2007‎‎, 22 Mar 2007, and 14 Mar 2007

3. PCPP edited Template:Command & Conquer series: 14 Feb 2008, 14 Feb 2008 PatCheng edited Template:Command & Conquer: 2006-03-21, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-15, 2006-03-14

It's very strange that two unconnected accounts would edit the same video games' template pages, AND that they would also both primary focus on editing Falun Gong/Epoch Times pages (exhibiting the same POV), AND that one account was created when the other stopped editing. Statistically, the chance this is a coincidence is very low.

4. on 28 Jun 2009, Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article, AND PCPP's message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and on 16 Jan 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited. Before PCPP’s ban in 2011, he worked with user Simonm223 on FLG topic.

PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET. PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2 As there isn't any record that PatCheng communicated with Simonm223 before, suppose PatCheng is unrelated to PCPP (who had worked with Simonm223 before), how could PatCheng inform Simonm223 in editing FLG topic after PatCheng’s return in 2019 just re-starting his editing on Epoch Times?

5 STSC created his account in Jul 2006 and was inactive - edited 125 times before 2011. PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011. In 2011 STSC turned to be quite active - edited 1535 times in 2011 alone and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Apr 2016 The account LucasGeorge was in Jan 2012 after PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011, turned to be active in June 2016 - 2 months after STSC was topic banned. Recently LucasGeorge removed reliable sources related to CBC reports from ET article in the same way PatCheng did before he was topic banned using undue weight as the rationale.

Two of PCPP’s top 10 edited pages are Kilgour–Matas report and Criticism of Confucius Institutes while among LucasGeorge’s 10 edited articles, there are two very related ones to PCPP’s two: Organ transplantation in China, and Confucius Institute.

6. PCPP was topic banned in 2011 from Falun Gong and so was STSC in 2016. Both violated the ban multiple times. 3 examples for PCPP: User_talk:PCPP#January_2012, User_talk:PCPP#Are_you_deliberately_courting_another_ban? and User_talk:PCPP#July_2016. 2 examples for STSC: STSC was warned for violating the topic ban in June 2016, and STSC was warned again in July 2016 since at that time on PCPP's talk page, STSC attempted to help PCPP get unblocked by framing an admin as being involved. BTW, as PatCheng and PCPP worked as Simonm223 (mentioned in point 4), STSC also had communication with Simonm223. STSC left a message to Simonm223.

B. Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox were conducting POV editing in Falun Gong article

I was trying to address the issue Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox brought the article before being reported by PatCheng. Please allow me to go over the context of all related edits this year, as it was not explored by the admins reviewing the complaints from PatCheng.

1. In mid-May 2020, Bloodofox did a major change without prior discussion to the lead section of the Falun Gong article, which had been stable for over 1 year and has been under Discretionary Sanctions for many years. Multiple users（excluding me）complained the edit on the talk page. By the beginning of June, I notice that Bloodofox's edits were problematic. One main issue was that Bloodofox had misrepresented his sources. The following lines were added into the lead section of the article. a) “The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad...” b) "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun…" but these lines were not supported by any of the 6 sources provided. C). Also, the NYT source and NBC source were further misrepresented by Bloodofox. [1].

2. From June 3 to 5, I tried to address the issue by discussing and editing in good faith: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section, Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right". In my edits, I cited the following reliable sources that addressed Bloodofox's misrepresentation issue a) and b), and then expanded the content.

a. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Behind-the-blitz-Falun-Gong-practitioners-spend-14966684.php "Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong"

b. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CULTURE-AND-RELIGION-Dissident-media-linked-to-2587555.php

c. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690

d. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

My edits did not touch contents supported by Bloodofox's sources, but modified their unsourced lines into a line like “Falun Gong practitioners formed performing arts company Shen Yun and Epoch Times”, based on the new sources. I said to User:Horse Eye Jack on the talk page that he is welcome to add any RS supported contents. Please note WP:NOR should be followed. But User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting without reasonable grounds and multiple reliable sources in my edits were deleted. Here are Horse Eye Jack’s reverts from June 3 to 5: [2] [3] [4] and Bloodofox's revert on June 5: [5]

Meanwhile, Horse Eye Jack accused me of having COI and being a SPA, he then reported me in an ANER case (failed). I responded by providing real-life examples of what COI would look like (discerning myself from COI persons). But Horse Eye Jack misconstrued my words as attacking him.

3. On June 10, I did two edits:

a. [6] As per the discussion Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right", at the same time, I fixed the issue that NBC was used twice for the same line.

b. [7] with a summary stated that ”It was not reasonable to put the info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the "Origins" section. I am moving it to the section called "Falun Gong outside China".

For the edit b, my concern was that the re-organization was undue, as it places the fringe aspect of overseas Falun Gong organizations in the very beginning, obscuring the introduction of the group. (My concern was later addressed, as Bloodofox's problematic reorganization was substantially undone by another user, without disagreements from the community). Despite my reasonable objection, my edit was still reverted by Bloodofox [8] without giving any explanation, which I felt was ungrounded and disruptive.

After Bloodofox reverted my edit b, Horse Eye Jack then reverted my edit a: [9] ignoring the consensus on the talk page 5 days ago, which had agreed to specify that it was the NYT and NBC that had reported the Epoch Times of associating with right-wing politics.

Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack’s reverts were unjustified. At that point, feeling that there were bully users who wouldn't allow any constructive edits that addressed the disruptive WP:OR issue, I restored the article to the state prior to Bloodofox’s major edit in May in the following day: [10] with a summary stating "the page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relatively stable article in May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been not stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May. "

C. One very possible reason that I was reported by POV editor PatCheng three times

I have never met PatCheng in Wikipedia editing, nor had any conflict with PatCheng, yet I was reported by PatCheng three times (one ANI case and two AE cases). Esp. last year PatCheng showed up first reporting me after 13 years’ retirement was very surprising. I notice POV editor STSC (Falun Gong topic banned in Apr 2016) seemed to be the connection between PatCheng and me. PatCheng's reports against me seem to be revenge in response to my 3RR report against STSC.

WP:ARBFLG shows other two anti Falun Gong activists were topic banned in 2007 as attempting "to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy on FLG related articles. I fully agree with the following Wikipedia principles that were applied in WP:ARBFLG:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
• Neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
• Point of view editing: Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site.

I respect human rights and paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet and human rights defender who died of CCP's human rights abuse). and completed the creation of the article Xu Pei (a poet and human rights defender in Germany) this May. Both figures are human rights defenders. The China's Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong turned Falun Gong an international human rights issue and FG related pages often were not following WP:5P2 mainly because there were anti FG activists who often promoted their narrative in their POV editing while disregarding Wikipedia policies and WP:ARBFLG. Thus, aside from my interest in refrigeration engineering related articles, FLG became my one focus.

In 2015/2016, I tried to prevent STSC's POV editing in FLG topic. STSC warned me six times and reported me for 3RR violation but he was the one violated 3RR, not me. So I reported STSC for 3RR as well. While in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse to PatCheng’s AE report, I had refuted PatCheng’s fake accusations one by one, one of PatCheng’s accusation in his 3 reports against me saying “launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him” looks esp. unusual. Reporting STSC’s 3RR violation is not an offence by any mean. An unrelated user to STSC is unlikely to mention this in AE reports. Aside the evidence in section A, This also indicates that PatCheng and STSC seem to be related.

D. PatCheng's POV edits spread in Wikipedia Falun Gong topic

After to the Epoch Times article on Aug 20, 2019, when it was just released, a lot of other RS supported contents in the ET article that were not in line with the view from PatCheng and the like-minded POV users were censored and removed - one example: a previous edit from one reviewer on PatCheng's AE report against me. PatCheng even removed content from a CBC report by falsely claiming the quoted as Original Research. Some users or even admins could have been misled by the POV article.

It was Bloodofox who promoted the NBC report that PatCheng first introduced to Wikipedia in August 2019 to Falun Gong related articles in May 2020 and June 2010. In the process, WP:OR contents without the support of NBC or any sources were added. It is evident that RS-supported views sympathetic to the victims of the persecution were censored, but info accusing FLG were stated as facts rather than NPOV descriptions that include who the accusers were. Although on articles under Discretionary Sanctions Bloodofox conducted major edits that violated WP:V and WP:NOR many times, there was one involved user often showed up for reverting and warning other users who tried to address Bloodofox's damages to the articles. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 1. The reverting of my 7th edit and the subsequent warning against me were in the same pattern.

I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. All my this year's 7 edits in the Falun Gong article reflected WP:NPOV spirit. POV editors PatCheng/STSC, Horse Eye Jack, and Bloodofox seem to reject any RS supported views that were different from their POV. Thus I became a barrier for anti-FLG POV editors. It seems to be because of PatCheng's pro-CCP POV and my effort to address POV edits, that he kept attempting to get me banned since last year.

In his AE report, PatCheng distorted my words for framing me being personal attack. The evidence presented against me did not show evidence of policy violations, aspersion-casting, or disruptive editing, as claimed. Please review my evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse, since the admins reviewing the complaint did not appear to carefully review my evidence before deciding to ban me.

In summary, it was Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack who were engaged in disruptive POV editing, and I only tried to correct those questionable WP:OR content. It was an involved user's erroneous revert & warning seems to be made use of by the Falun Gong topic banned PCPP/STSC’s sock puppet user. As such, PatCheng's AE report against me should be considered as being invalid and the topic ban enforeced on me should be canceled.

For any valid criticism, I will improve. I note that English is not my native language, which sometimes might have made my discussion hard to understand. I will try to improve in this area. I will continue consult with other editors first before making significant content change. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2020

Response to the users who have commented

Thanks Newslinger for notifying those users who were reported and for moving the appealing/reporting from ANI to AN. This is my first time for launching a case here. Sorry for being not familiar with some rules for posting on ANI/AN.

Thanks so much to Pudeo for reading most part of the section A and launching the WP:SI case to investigate PatCheng/PCPP. I appreciate you spent time investigating and finding a lot new evidence that shows PatCheng and PCPP are sock puppet.

Many users commented that the post was too long to read. I acknowledge, yes, it is too long. It seems even Pudeo did not finish reading the first section. In the end part of section A more evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge were provided, and the end part of section C addressed the connection between STSC and PatCheng as well. If it is possible, i hope you can also include this part in the SI case.

My point in appealing was clear:

1. I was wrongfully reported in an AE case by a user who seems to be sock puppet of a topic banned user PCPP.

2. All my 7 edits on the Falun Gong articles before being reported were explained in detail one by one in section B. Many users commented that i did not explain my own edits. This is simply not true. It seems that nobody even finished reading the first section, let alone about section B and other sections.

3. All the accusations from PatCheng and others were refuted one by one with detailed evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse. Again, this was too long, nobody would care to read it through.

I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plot to report and get me banned ran deep in many years involving multiple possible sock puppets.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by Bloodofox. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so i intend to appeal in the hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct mistakes. I worked for a few weeks in order to prepare the detailed appealing post that includes numerous evidence.

In reality, as nobody wants to read a long post, CaptainEek's advice to withdraw makes sense to me. I will consider to withdraw the appeal. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek:: can you teach me how to withdraw the appeal? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just say here that you want to withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

!voting unban of Marvin 2009

Link to Arbitration Enforcement Request, which was June 30th

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than an appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing in other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Opposeper Newslinger --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am gravely concerned that this appeal looks like a massive casting of aspersions, which was a problem for which user was TBANned. The criticisms in the DS discussion continue to hold true in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This appeal does not adequately address any of the issues (disruptive editing in the Falun Gong topic area) that led to Marvin 2009 being topic banned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Marvin 2009. Appeals need to focus on the appellant's own behavior, not that of other editors. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've notified LucasGeorge, Bloodofox, and Horse Eye Jack using {{AN-notice}}, as required by the noticeboard instructions. The other editors are either inactive or topic banned. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. When someone writes a 7000-word appeal about how everyone else was the problem, the author was usually the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• OP: I highly suggest you withdraw this request, and write a far more concise version that deals with your editing, not that of other people. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  This is good advice for the next appeal, but I highly recommend waiting at least six months before appealing again, and using the time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I second Newslinger, you should probably wait six months, this appeal has left the community with a bad taste in its mouth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. This mind-numbing TLDR opus fails to explain why this editor should have their topic ban lifted and instead goes back 14 years to argue that six other editors are bad actors. I believe that this is the worst appeal I have ever read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone above (and possibly below). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It was pointed out in the AE thread that led to the topic ban that PatCheng returned from a 13 year hiatus to file a report on Marvin on ANI, and this was acknowledged in the uninvolved admin comments. As a result, PatCheng was also topic-banned. However, Marvin's own conduct was also independently found to be problematic, so focusing on that only is unlikely to make the appeal successful. I don't think there's much evidence for connecting any other accounts than PatCheng and PCPP (Editor Interaction Tool). Both accounts have a relatively low edit count (~3,000), but besides a lot of Chinese politics related articles they have also intersection in videogames like PC PowerPlay, Template:Handheld game consoles, Xbox 360 technical problems, MapleStory, Unreal (1998 video game), Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, which is highly suspicious. So it is possible that there is one editor who has FLG topic bans on multiple accounts, and PatCheng edited in violation of one. But again, unclean hands from him is probably not enough to exonerate Marvin 2009, although if he really is PCPP, he made 1 ANI and 2 AE reports in violation of his topic ban. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I opened a SPI for the connection between PatCheng and PCPP which is the right place to process it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the request needs to be made more concise and it needs to focus on your behaviour, not other people's. Whether other people were acting appropriately has little or nothing to do with whether you were. Hut 8.5 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I strongly stand by my assertion that this account has COI issues and they were in fact a SPA even if they later tried to diversify their editing pattern in an attempt to shake the label. There are also a half dozen major inaccuracies and at least a dozen minor inaccuracies in their description of whats been happening on FG related pages but I think thats besides the point, this is a diatribe against those this FG account feels has wronged them not a legitimate request to lift a topic ban. We regularly see this sort of thing from the little pinks so its not super surprising to see it from the other side. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is possibly the worst unblock request I've ever seen, at least in the category >500 words. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:TLDR and what everybody else wrote above in the !vote section. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a textbook example of how to NOT get your appeal approved. Everyone else is not the issue, you need to review your own behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A screed against others, not a legitimate appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from the implementing administrator I was never notified of this thread which seems odd. Further, the community should keep in mind that I have had to implement additional editing restriction on Falun Gong to try to stop the continual edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I overlooked notifying you, because you weren't mentioned in the appeal at all. Apologies. — Newslinger talk 19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, due to WP:NOTTHEM violation. Guy (help!) 21:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Marvin 2009 keeps abusing the sectioning/subsectioning feature by placing every post he makes in a separate subsection. This clutters the TOC and gives his posts - especially the section titles -- undue prominence. I have corrected this twice, once at ANI and once here. Could an admin please ask him to stop this behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 28 July 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.

Improper re-listing of MfD nomination

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 opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN on 20 July. By seven days later, it had attracted substantial discussion, including 20 additional bolded !votes. The raw count of the bolded votes was 12 delete, 4 Keep and blank, 3 Keep, and 1 Neutral. To my eye, that's a clear consensus to delete. And yet, despite this, an editor relisted it "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

I feel that the re-listing was improper, as a clear consensus had already been generated, and there was no need for additional comments in order for a consensus to be found. Since the re-listing was done by a non-administrator -- an editor who has only been here for 5 months [11] -- I would like an administrator to take a look and decide if the relisting was justified or not, and close the discussion if a consensus is found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In notifying the re-listing editor, I came across these discussion on their talk page: [12] and "Please stop relisting". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: On their talk page, under your notice, I have advised them to stay out of administrative areas. I also suggest mentorship for them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a clear consensus. The discussion is indeed leaning delete and likely will be closed as delete, but I would not say relisting is a policy violation. It a possible outcome of the first phase of discussion. Note also please that of many pages in the nomination only the first one has been tagged for MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I agree that this not a NAC business.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerning only the first page: that is indeed the case. I could not find instructions for bundling nominations for MfD. As I said in the discussion, anyone who knows how to do it is free to tag the other files, or tell me how to do it, but I think it's clear that all participants understand that all the files listed are under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the policy is not so much for the participants of the discussion, but for those who has pages on the watchlist, to make them aware that they are nominated. In this case, the chances are very small that someone follows just one or a few pages, but still non-zero, and if I were a closing admin I would not know what to do with these nominations. People use scripts to mass-nominate the articles, but for this number it is probably easier to copy the same template to every page manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried that, the problem being that the rendered template then references a non-existence MfD page, and i can't see anywhere in the template doc where the correct page can be inserted. Nevertheless, I guess it's better than nothing so I put the {{mfd|help=off}} template on each page, except for the one tht it was agreed to keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor needs their history to be reviewed. I'm seeing they have only been here since February and is already mistakenly labeling a questioner in the current RFA as someone who has made no edits elsewhere. Changing the title of someone else's thread in the same RFA. The relisting issues mentioned above. This seems like an editor trying to act like a admin. Valeince (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • @Valeince: Having watched @Chicdat: since they joined, I do feel like some of their contributions are a bit odd and confusing. Especially when you consider that the user is a very young editor (Year 2 - 4 on the UK Education System) who needs to get more life experience and doesnt like 6-year-olds editing the encyclopedia. However, I do wonder if @Bbb23: was on to something here, especially when you consider that they disappeared for about a User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_2#Uh,_Chicdat? week afterwards.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry to correct you, Jason Rees, but it's not conceivably possible that Bbb23, with his years of experience, could have been right about a thing like that, since ArbCom has definitively ruled that as a CU he was a potent danger to the community and needed to be shorn of his powers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I reverted the MfD close re-listing before I saw this discussion, but it looks like most of the other editors here agree with undoing it. In any case, if an admin thinks that I was mistaken and wants to relist it, I'll certainly respect that, although I think that would be a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)--Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind, I changed your "close" above to "re-listing". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 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.

Changes to Oversight team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight rights of GB fan (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

Self-requesting close review

I recently closed Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#RfC_about_the_description_of_the_governance_of_this_university as "no consensus". ElKevbo has questioned this close on my talk page, essentially arguing that I did not properly accept the expert nature of the sources he proposed as definitively settling the RfC question. I had weighted the arguments in favor of "public" as somewhat more persuasive than those for "state supported" but there was a clear plurality for "state supported" and I felt dismissing those !votes would amount to a supervote. I have explained this but ElKevbo still remains unsatisfied with my responses. Posting here to open this to wider review. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a fan of these self-requested close reviews. If you do not have the faith in your own judgment to discuss and defend your rationales, you should not be closing discussions. Just because someone challenges and argues with your close does not mean you need to go running for a review. A close review is not the same thing as a review about your judgment in a close, or if a participant is in the right or wrong for being unsatisfied with your close, it is a review as to whether the close was objectively in the wrong due to some obvious factors that the closer missed. If Kevbo has such an argument, he can bring it to us, but simply disagreeing with you is not grounds to do so, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this here. I'll bite, but for future reference, you don't need to come here and eat up our time simply because an involved user disagrees. That's not a grave outcome, that's par for the course. Defend your closes and stand behind them, or don't make them. If a user really wants to make a close challenge, they can do that, or they can simply decide to cut their losses. Don't go out of your way to challenge your own closes. Regarding the close, I count votes 7 for "state-related", 5 for "neither" or "other", and 4 for "public". It's true, Kevbo provided a strong source-based argument, and a closer should assign greater weight based on it. Even giving full acknowledgement to the sources provided, it did little to convince the community, and it was less popular than even a new approach of simply including no descriptor at all rather than one supplanted by all these sources. A closer is to heavily weigh policy-based arguments, and the availability of sources is literally one of our core policies. You should have given significant weight to the user who based their argument from sources. That being said, the support for "public" was so low that doesn't make a difference. Even with such a strong, source-based argument, it was still the least-popular option. Maybe if views were split, 7-8 or 6-9, I could justify a reading of consensus in favor of the argument that has the sources on its side. But we're talking 4-11, an overwhelming consensus against "public", and that's in spite of a large number of sources. So given that, it's disingenuous to suggest that a closer should read a minority consensus in spite of overwhelming community opposition. Close wasn't wrong, and the challenge doesn't even have much credibility. Please learn from this, explain your assessment and thought process with closes if challenged but don't automatically bring them up for review. You need to not back down and immediately succumb to a drama board timesink if someone disagrees with your judgment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all I agree this is a reasonable close. I do want to strongly disagree with Swarm here on the "strength of argument" thing. If 100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth, we don't write that he does if it's not true and reliable sources that address the debate all agree it's not true. In the same way, we don't claim Jesus's birthday is December 25th even though the vast majority of sources may claim that. In this case it isn't a public school and I believe that every reliable source which does more than just give it a label (and so actually discusses the issue) acknowledges that. I think going with "state-related" would have been the correct close (because that's indisputably correct), but NC is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement of the close, Swarm. It might have been enlightening to read the prior discussion with EKB I had been having for multiple days on my user talk. It was handily linked for your convenience in the same post above where the close was linked. I have been closing discussions for years and I have never backed down from explaining the reasons behind the close to anyone who asks. If you had looked at that page, there was also a prominent link to a log of closes I maintain, and please tell me, how many of those have I "automatically" sought review of? The one and only reason I sought review to "eat up your time" was because EKB went to that article and was unsatisfied with the response and then created an RfC and was unsatisfied with that response and then went to my talk page and I could see they were clearly unsatisfied with my response there. There was a high likelihood that there was going to be some further discussion somewhere that would "eat up time" and why not bring it to the notice board that is actually designated by the closing policy as the venue for review? But, hey, what's a little admin condescension among experienced editors? That's clearly what we're all here to provide. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if "100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth" and a majority of participants support including that, then we should include it. Hopefully that never happens, but there will be cases where the closer believes the majority to be "wrong" but so long as they make policy-based arguments, the closer may not substitute their own judgment over that of the participants (WP:SUPERVOTE). (Of course various things need to be considered, like if contradictory evidence is presented late in the game, whether the other side simply hasn't had a chance to review it or they have reviewed and rejected it.) If you believe the result to be so hopelessly wrong that you cannot in good conscience close it in that direction, then you should participate in the discussion instead of closing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In this case at least, the majority went with the true thing rather than the "popularly said, but wrong" thing. My point would be that strength of argument isn't by a count of sources, but by the sources which actually address the issue. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, @Hobit:, it's pretty damn petty and annoying that you're even wasting our time with this line of argumentation. When we speak of sources and verifiability, it should go without saying that we're referring to reliable sources. You've presented a disingenuous straw man argument invoking a situation in which unreliable sources are stating a belief of popular folklore, and suggesting that I am saying that I would "count sources" in this situation. Give me a fucking break, you know damn well that isn't an analog to this situation, nor am I saying unreliable sources should be weighted to numerical count. Policy gets weighted over personal opinion, and an argument supported by reliable sources gets weighted over an argument based on a personal view, that's how this works, that's what I'm saying, and frankly it's lame that you're making me repeat this because of some bizarre pedantry that you want to force me into an argument or some thought experiment over. Knock it off. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Popularly said [by virtually all of the published experts] but wrong [according to some Wikipedia editors]" would be a much more honest and accurate assessment of the situation. It's rare that we have such an alignment of high quality, published sources that are seeking to answer the exact same question - how do we best summarize the governance of this institution? - as we are trying to answer and it's extremely frustrating that many Wikipedia editors are substituting their own judgment for those of the experts'. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, I'm sorry you see it as a waste. My argument is that while we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private", we don't have that constraint. Most all of the press that addresses the issue sticks with "state-related" when it matters [13],[14]. It calls itself a "public-private hybrid" [15]. From our article "...the university remains a private entity, operating under its nonprofit corporate charter, governed by its independent Board of Trustees, and with its assets under its own ownership and control". [16]. To say it is a "public" school is, at best, a gross oversimplification. At worst, it's just wrong. We have the word "public" at other schools linking to Public university, but here it links to Commonwealth System of Higher Education. So yeah, I firmly believe that the strength of argument and numbers are on the "state-related" side. My choice of analogies were poor. I was trying to find examples of "commonly said in reliable sources but wrong". I probably should have either found better analogies or just dropped it. Hobit (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily problematic that you (a) cite Newsweek as the sole example of sources that use the "public" label when virtually all of the experts (e.g., Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, National Center for Education Statistics) use that label and (b) can cite only publications written by the subject to support the "state-related" label. It's incredibly frustrating that you and others persist in ignoring the vast number of sources, many written by experts, to focus almost exclusively on the small number of sources written by the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I said ..we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private"... That includes both the Carnegie Classifications (which are the gold standard here) and the NCES. I used Newsweek as the example because more folks would be aware of it. Realizing this probably belongs on a talk page, I stick it out here a bit longer and check to be sure we are on the same page about what the underlying disagreement is. I think we agree that "state-related" is accurate. Do we agree that it is a more precise description than either "public" or "private"? I *think* the issue is simply if we use the fairly imprecise term "public" or the better understood, but less precise term "public" in the lede. Do you agree with all that? And for the record, I do think that picking either just "public" or "private" is misleading, though I agree many very good sources uses exactly those terms (usually public, much more rarely private) to describe these schools. Also wiki-linking "public" in the lede to a different article than the vast majority of other public schools is a troublesome WP:SURPRISE. But all that (in small font) I don't think we'll agree on. I'm mainly curious if we are on the same page for the other stuff. Feel free to continue this discussion somewhere (talk page of the article, my talk page, your talk page) if you wish. Just leave a link here to wherever that is. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors substituting their own judgment over that employed by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources is a problem. The question that should be answered is not "How would I label this institution?" but "How do the sources label this institution?" And the answer to that is overwhelmingly clear. We don't allow editors to substitute their own preferences and judgments over those used in the sources we cite but that's exactly what is happening here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry we can't seem to have a successful discussion--I feel that you are just repeating the same things and not engaging, perhaps you feel the same. You certainly didn't address my points, and I feel I've at least tried to address yours, but maybe I've not succeeded. I think we ended up in the wrong place with this article (perhaps the only significant point here which we agree on), but frankly it's a minor point in the scope of the entire encyclopedia and I just don't see a way forward. I wish we could have found something everyone was happy with. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the close is reasonable, and that this is a fuzzy question where an atypical arrangement makes it difficult to classify the topic according to the categories most commonly used in the field. I strongly disagree with User:Swarm's opinion on seeking review of the close. Any editor should always be comfortable asking for a second opinion here on their closure of a discussion. BD2412 T 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn is, of course, welcome to ask others to review the close. However, if I thought the close were so flawed as to warrant a review by others then I would have asked for one. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's never wrong to request feedback, outside opinions, or review of one's actions. It's when we believe that our actions are beyond review that we are treading dangerous ground. And if one's actions are being questioned, it's right to ask for a review here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Resysop Grace Period RfC

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

---

There is an RfC about whether there should be a grace period/grandfathering of administrators based on the last changes at the last resysop RfC. Interested editors are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 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 have received welcome notices from two other language wikis I have not signed into

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.

---

Earler today I received this message in Hindi [17] and just now I received one in Ukranian [18]. The Ukrainian one has a user page [19] with a message "I edit WP. Creating this page so my name does not appear in red here.". This is certainly not me, I have never signed into those versions of WP. I find this rather worrying, has somebody had access to my password? What if anything should I do about it, I don't want to be responsible for activities under my name which have nothing to do with me.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Change your password at once. Something strong and unique. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

meta:Special:Contributions/Smeat75 I see you created your meta user page in February. Any wiki where you have not created a user page will transclude your meta page. Such I see on Ukrainian Wiki --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You can check your contribs globally here. FWIW, I get welcomes from all over the world, but only edit here and on meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I get these every now and then, in different languages from Wikipedias I've never gone near - that's even with a strong password and 2FA, and definitely no security breach. I think it's related to the unified password thing, and there are weird ways you can appear to have connected up with other projects. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Smeat75 for all the projects your account has been connected to, and anyone on any of those could choose to welcome you. Check the projects you've had welcomes from and check if your account has done anything there, and if not I wouldn't worry about it. But definitely have a strong and unique password anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did sign into meta in Feb, maybe that explains it, though it seems odd that that was in Feb and I get welcome messages from other language wikis fr the first time in July. Anyway, I changed my password. Thanks for your help.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

When I get these, it's not related to any recent log in to meta. I've no idea what triggers it, but if you look at my global account you'll see something has attached it to a huge number of projects - and I've probably had around 20 or 30 welcomes from various ones so far! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Although this Wikipedia objects perennially to the idea of a bot welcoming users, others have implemented it, and I imagine that's responsible for many a ghost welcome. ——Serial 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used a script to sign in to all Wikimedia sites. This got most of the welcomes out of the way. As SN points out there were some delayed welcomes when that particular wiki ran a welcoming bot later on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for the advice and help. Smeat75 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 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.

Reopening non-admin-closed RfC

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.

---

RfC at Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#Merger proposal was closed by an editor after just 11 days. Can an admin re-open this so that others can vote as well? Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No evidence (at least in the closing diff) that this was an RFC. Closing editor was not even asked about the close before this was posted. Closing editor was not notified by OP that this discussion was happening. François Robere, this post is step #4 and you've skipped steps 1-3. I'm half-tempted to close this just because it's so far out-of-process. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted Chrisdevelop's close as it was clearly out of process. Let's not let AN bureaucracy get in the way. Fences&Windows 22:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fences and windows, genuinely out of curiosity, what's out-of-process about that close? It wasn't an AN, and 11 days is plenty of time for a merge discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, the close tallied votes rather than assessing consensus and was done by an involved user, contrary to Wikipedia:MERGECLOSE. Fences&Windows 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see it was an involved close. That should have been mentioned, not all the other non-existent reasons for re-opening. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 30 July 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 – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

expert comment on edit

please compare this edit with previos edit i think what he is up to is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&oldid=970036532 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive backlog at RM

Hey all,

Just to let admins who don't frequent RM that there is a massive backlog forming there. Although I'm active in closing moves, there are some that would be better with administrator closure, if not for consensus appraisal reasons, for technical reasons (move-over-redirects are less intrusive on history pages than round-robin moves). Sceptre (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User page and/or signature copying?

Is there any guideline about it being unfavourable to copy another editor's user page or signature? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, AFAIK, not really. However, Wikipedia's license is WP:CC BY-SA, so attribution is usually required for original work, but if a user is forging another editors user page or signature, that's a different matter. Ed6767 talk! 02:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You could just ask them if you could borrow their layout. It's been a pretty longstanding practice, provided you ask. bibliomaniac15 05:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I don't think there's really any policy regarding this (unless it's a case of impersonation). The polite thing to do would certainly be to ask - or at least in the case of a userpage, it would be nice to give a nod / link to the original. SQL^{Query me!} 07:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all above. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

India/Hindu/Muslim articles

My attention has been drawn to what appears to be a coordinated drive by Hindutva supporters (Hindu nationalists) against the current WMF donation drive in India. Katherine Meyer seems to be taking quite a bit of flak on Twitter, which follows on from OpIndia's earlier efforts to browbeat Jimbo. I suspect we're going to see even more disruption that usual on Indian articles, especially those of interest to extreme right-wing/anti-Muslim groups. I'm useless at Twitter links, which morph like crazy, but you'll hopefully get the idea from this zealot. We may need more eyes. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we're on OpIndia again regarding Jai Shri Ram. This may affect related articles like 2019 Jharkhand mob lynching, Takbir etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone interested can just go to Twitter and enter the hashtag #Wikipedia. You will see a firehose of abuse from Hindu nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Something else

In reference to the the User Talk on[Talk: Loonboy007], with the subject matter reference being Gautam Navlakha. I would like to submit that I made updates to the Gautam Navlakha;s wiki page based on recent publicly available and verified events relating to Gautam Navlakha. The source of the edits has been documented as third parties with whom I have no relationship. As such, the edits made by me are consistent with the policies laid out by Wikipedia regarding reliable source and WP:BLP. However, users SerChevalerie and Tayi Arajakate keep undoing the edits. This is in violation of WP:NOT as these editors are clearly engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and in Propaganda Wikipedia:NOTPROPAGANDA. Loonboy007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits were reverted because they violated WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. Instead of discussing the problematic edits, the user decided to edit war. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User is also not clear about this noticeboard, I was not formally informed on my Talk page, came here because I saw the ping. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Loonboy007, They were reverted because it was a pretty blatant WP:BLP violation, not to mention half of it was original research. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Notifying French Wikipedia admins about sockpuppetry

Does anyone have French skills good enough to inform administrators on French Wikipedia about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moe szylak? Most of the socks have been active on French Wikipedia, and while the accounts are being globally locked, their edits over there often don't get reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I speak French well but write it terribly. I normally just use Google Translate: "Les accomptes sockpuppet sur investigations/Moe szylak ce lien sur en.wiki peuvent être intéressants. Notez que je ne parle pas français, c'est via Google translate. Merci." A large portion of French speakers also speak good English, in my experience.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I took care of it here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted. But we already have a long enough list of sockpuppets (= "faux-nez") under this account, as you can see here. Hope this list can help (I suspect this account is mostly interested in subjects dealing with North African immigration to France and Belgium, as evidenced by the list of pages he tried to contribute to).
Thanks, anyway. Azurfrog (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us. Our list on fr.wp was not up to date, which allowed us to find out undetected accounts. We have a look on it. --d-n-f (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tous ensemble, tous ensemble! ——Serial 14:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Merci à tous! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Quoi de neuf, les francophones!—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely help, but not immediately, so I have to ask if this is time-sensitive? If not, make a request at my Talk page, or just move this discussion (or copy it) there. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Oh, I see; you've already posted there. Never mind. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIV, WP:CYBER and WP:PA by Flyer22 Frozen in order to WP:WIN.

I wrote a proposal about retitling an article here. And then Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) joined the discussion right after. They immediately started pinging specific editors to engage in the discussion and have a poll of their own and expressed their strong opposition. Then I was asked that it was better to turn the discussion into an official move request but since I was busy and occupied at the time I let it be and made the requested move some weeks later. I didn't start a new section to avoid duplication of already discussed subjects. The comments that were made and discussions that took place were all put in the "discussion" section and I added a vote section for the RM poll.

Flyer22 Frozen came back, berating me for something that he/she asked me to do which was turning the discussion into WP:RM. Then only hours after the RM was opened they closed the discussion, merely due to some oversight by an editor but Flyer22 started ordering me around telling me, 'DO NOT start a discussion about the subject' because 'nothing will EVER change' and saying I MUST NOT ping him/her in a discussion. then came back again lecturing me, calling my calm discussion, "rambling" & "going off at the mouth" which is WP:UNCIVIL. At that point, Flyer22 and the other users that were notified by him/her and voted 'oppose' started dominating the page and responding to every single 'support' which is WP:BLUD and objecting to the supporters of RM which is a violation of WP:CON.

Although the way Flyer22 pinged other editors seemed a little questionable to me, since 'Flyer22' is an experienced Wikipedian I assumed that's a way of WP:CAN so I did the same and notified some editors to participate in the discussion and share their opinion. but again 'Flyer22' came back questioning me and in order to turn the table and put the label on me accused me of 'having some kind of relations to the editors that I pinged' which is WP:AOBF and ad hominem and basically claiming, when they pinged some users for the poll it was okay and totally in accordance with WP:Canvassing but If I do it there's something wrong with it.

After that, another user, Mathglot (talk · contribs) pinged me, speaking on behalf of Flyer22 and strongly defending them, basically stating that I'm not allowed to question anything and Flyer22 is totally mistake-free and can do no wrong. later Mathglot attacked another editor to defend Flyer22. So now not only I'm being surrounded by never-ending comments that are directed at me from Flyer22, who is cherry picking statements from policies and resorts to faulty generalizations as an attempt to impose their personal opinion, but also I have to deal with yet another editor who's playing the role of an advocate/spokesperson for Flyer22. Considering that it is not a winning process, It's unacceptable and disruptive that they see the discussion as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, force their viewpoint with a huge volume of comments, insistently respond to all the 'supports' of the poll, continuously argue with them and try to bludgeon the process.

Flyer22 Frozen spoke with condescending and inappropriate language to me, repeatedly labeled my responses rambling, faulty and incoherent, adopted a disrespectful approach, and dismissive attitude toward me. He/she branded me just a newbie, let's say it is true, I am a much less experienced WikiPedian than 'Flyer22 Frozen' therefore what he/she did is WP:BITE and all of these courses of action just in order to get their own way and have the poll done according to their personal preference in spite of others' opinions. I was just an offeror of a WP:RM and made the proposal and now I've become the target of personal attacks by harassing lengthy comments from Flyer22 and others like Mathglot who jumped on the bandwagon. Bionic (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, you joined Wikipedia in 2016 — you are no longer a newcomer. As for personal attacks, you have failed to demonstrate any —quote excerpts alongside diffs for that— which makes your accusation an aspersion. Otherwise, content disputes do not belong on this noticeboard. El_C 11:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I never said I was a newcomer I said that user called me one. and I did demonstrate them with diffs, The examples are highlighted above. Bionic (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A canvassing concern could legitimately be bought here, but without knowing anything about the two pinged editors in terms of move discussions, I can't tell whether they were legitimately pinged (it does look that way) or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is — I guess I got distracted by all the boldface. El_C 11:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, my evaluation is that you have failed to demonstrate personal attacks. El_C 11:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The user's behavior and tone toward me and others. Continuously calling everything that I write rambling, faulty and incoherent. Arguing with anyone who voted 'support' and band together with a couple of other users that he/she pinged, against me and my opinion by inundating me with non-stop lengthy responses. Bionic (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Describing what one writes as being below par is not the same as an attack on one's person. El_C 11:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Resorting to fallacy in the discussion and questioning my character with a false accusation that I have some kind of relations to the editors that I pinged is ad hominem, especially since he/she did it first Flyer22 Frozen pinged editors and stated that it's a normal way of Wikipedia:Canvassing so I did it too. but when I did the exact same thing they did, suddenly there was something wrong with it.

The reason why the details, I mentioned, may not be noticeable here is that the discussion is increasingly boiling over due to the WP:BLUD. That's why I highlighted the words above. They totally treated the page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with their WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BLUD. The page history and their contribution speak for itself. Bionic (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that this user is not an administrator or bureaucrat here, they can't go around ordering others what to do or not to do. He/she literally forbid me to do a RM and said nothing will have changed. Bionic (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Engaging in a constructive discussion and voting is my absolute right as a Wikipedian but they're putting the sword of Damocles above my head for it. This is harassment and attack. Bionic (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Bi-on-ic, I too see no evidence of a personal attack - being told that you're wrong about something isn't harassment or a personal attack, in fact, it should be a crucial part in learning and growing as an editor on Wikipedia. Ed6767 talk! 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the highlighted examples that I mentioned above? Are you telling me that incivility, accusing others of bad faith, turning the discussion into a battleground and harassing me with a deluge of insulting comments and bludgeoning the process and arguing with those who voted positive in the poll, all in order to win the poll, is OK? Bionic (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is telling you that such behaviour is OK. They are telling you that none of the diffs that you linked demonstrate such behaviour rather than simple disagreement with your opinion. You are engaging in unwarranted speculation about people's motives rather than looking at what they actually wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Two threads on ANI and now this where complaints are made against somebody for not breaking our policy or guideline on anything. Wierd. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If you actually care to review the matter, you'll see that I have mentioned and linked everything above. WP:UNCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:BLUD don't consider as 'breaking policies or guidelines'? Bionic (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to sound like a Colonel Blimp here, but I would guess that you are of a rather younger generation than me (I am a grandparent), and that you have lived your life so far without anyone ever telling you that you are wrong. You need to learn that disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with me. I don't mind criticism at all if it's rational and discussed in a polite civilized manner. It's about the way that user handled the situation and did everything they could to have it their way and construct artificial obstacles to their own success and basically wanting to call all the shots at the expense of me by flooding me with offensive, false and misleading comments that are mentioned above. Bionic (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic, again, I still see no issues after spending the past 15 mins looking through these diffs, and even ones you didn't link. There were no personal attacks as far as I could tell, everyone was, be it bluntly, civilly commenting on your points and not you as a person. The pings were legit and everything seems to check out ok. Ed6767 talk! 17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

My views on Bi-on-ic's behavior are seen here. And like I noted there, "My notifying the editors I did doesn't run afoul the WP:Canvassing guideline. What [Bi-on-ic] did does, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. What [Bi-on-ic] did was spam." Mathglot also tried to explain WP:Canvassing to him. He somehow thinks that my pinging editors who are involved so that they can weigh in on that move discussion is the same as him delivering notifications to random, uninvolved editors. It's not. And I already addressed the two pings I made in the first discussion, which did not involve pinging editors to any "poll." He does not understand what WP:Canvassing is. And he needs to understand what it is before he does it again. I'm not getting any further involved in this ridiculous AN report. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If there were a tiny kernel of truth behind the OP's report, then this would be merely a frivolous and pointless report that was wildly exaggerated. But there isn't. It's a false report. Either there's a very serious misunderstanding of policy here for someone so senior, or I'm at a loss to account for their behavior.

This is creeping closer to WP:BOOMERANG territory for WP:DISRUPTION on article Talk pages based on misguided accusations of inappropriate behavior which do not exist.

Bi-on-ic ought to know this already based on their seniority, but what is worse, they seem incapable of understanding an explanation when given. Some of the misunderstanding borders on willful, such as this uncomprehending response of a simple explanation of appropriate notification, which reincorporates their previous (invalid) complaints about Flyer's pings.

I labeled Bi-on-ic's characterization a red herring (which is generous) and had a look at Bi-on-ic's recent behavior. I posted a neutrally worded question at this discussion (diff; perma) asking about their recent pings of 19 editors to that very same discussion, and was flabbergasted by their response. It is worth reproducing the brief exchange in its entirety:

Q & A about Bi-on-ic's notifications: excerpt from rev. 970616457 of the K.C. Talk page

Question about your July 28 notifications I wouldn't have bothered, Bi-on-ic, but since you brought it up, I do have a question about the canvassing issue. At #17:12, 29 July (now inside hatted portion; [perma] ), Paine Ellsworth wrote, Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration. I noticed however that you (Bi-on-ic) notified at least these 19 editors on July 28 on their Talk pages. (Sample notification.) May I ask where you got that list of nineteen editors? I haven't been around since the beginning of this discussion, and there seem to be references to some other discussion which I'm unaware of, and that may well explain this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Flyer22 Frozen did it first, then in the above discussion 'Flyer22 Frozen' and 'Mathglot' stated that pinging and notifying other users for a discussion is a normal and a way of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Their words, not mine. Bionic (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That is what we are dealing with, here. Flyer has no culpability here, that is clear, and is demonstrated separately above. As Phil Bridger pointed out, Bi-on-ic seems to have no understanding of the difference between neutral criticism or explanations of policy on the one hand, and a personal attack. Possibly worse, is their apparent inability to comprehend a guideline, after it's been explained multiple times. In my opinion, at a minimum Bi-on-ic needs to be cautioned against bringing frivolous complaints to ANI to waste everybody's time. If it were up to me, I'd request an Admin to give a brief warning on their Talk page to read up on basic policy before slinging accusations around. If it happens again, I wouldn't step so lightly. Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just look at this, Flyer22 Frozen said to me "Go away". "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Isn't this the guideline? I follow the guideline and notified them and they're telling me to GO AWAY. This is outright incivility and insult. Since nobody here warned this user for their inappropriate behavior, the next step for them would be blatantly cursing me out and threaten me. They need to be cautioned. Bionic (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

'Mathglot', This doesn't concern you but yet again you jumped to his/her defense. You lined up a bunch of false offensive accusation in favor of your friend, Flyer22 Frozen here and wrote that my complaints are frivolous and pointless, this report is false, I'm incapable of understanding and you finished by saying Flyer22 Frozen, has 'no culpability here'. Basically portraying me as evil and her as an angel. Well, you just spent your time and energy here to be an advocate for another editor and tried your best to vindicate him/her, which is highly questionable and strange, but they just showed their true colors by reverting my ANI notify from their Talk Page and responding 'GO AWAY'. Bionic (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bi-on-ic, an editor telling you to go away is not uncivil. It's not friendly, but it's not uncivil, and given that you have just raised an ANI report on them that multiple editors are telling you is almost disruptively frivolous, friendliness would perhaps be a bit too much to expect. The person who needs to act with caution here is you - seriously, read what people are telling you, and reflect on it, before more people start mentioning the B word. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, you did the right thing by notifying her; and yes, she's allowed to remove the notification. That's a non-event. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. I don't mind. The purpose of this report was to stand against inappropriate behavior & prevent personal attacks on other users. Fine by me. At the end of the day, I'm unaffected by this especially since that editor is just a simple user among hundreds of thousands, not even an admin, with that being said he/she can go away!... Bionic (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic, you ought to affected by this. Ideally, you'd take on board what the people above have told you, and recognise that there are some gaps in your understanding of how things work. Seriously, read through this thread and reflect on what folk have said. You might be able to use it as an opportunity to learn and improve your practice. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle default protection lengths

Right now, Twinkle's protection tool defaults to 2 days for edit and move protection, and 1 month for pending changes. Those are fairly fine I suppose (nobody's complained AFAIK) but I'd like to make the defaults smarter depending what on preset gets chosen. Things like arbitration enforcement, highly-visible templates, and others we typically default to indef should do so, but how about other defaults? Here's a quick starting off point:

• Misuse of user talk page: indef
• Arbitration enforcement: indef
• Highly-visible template: indef
• Move indef: indef
• BLP (semi or extended confirmed): 1 week
• BLP (PC): 2 months

The full list of presets is here:

Extended content

Full protection Generic Content dispute/edit warring Persistent vandalism User talk of blocked user Template protection Highly visible template Extended confirmed protection Arbitration enforcement Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing BLP policy violations Sockpuppetry Semi-protection Generic Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing Adding unsourced content BLP policy violations Sockpuppetry User talk of blocked user Pending changes Generic Persistent vandalism Disruptive editing Adding unsourced content BLP policy violations Move protection Generic Dispute/move warring Page-move vandalism Highly visible page

Any others that should change their defaults? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure this is particularly needed, but if doing so, I'd say the first four are absolutely fine. My other two are customised so much as to make changing somewhat counterproductive. PC BLP in particular seems a long way out - I don't think that's what we'd want to be encouraging as the default length, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's lengthy, to be sure, but followed from BLP=more than the default and the default for PC being 1 month. If the general sense is "nah, keep the BLPs at 2 days/1 month, then we can be done early here! ;) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  I personally would not increase the default lengths for BLPs. I'd be more likely to use a protection setting on a BLP, for obvious reasons, but, having decided to do so, I don't think I'd generally plan to increase the length relative to another type of article. Within reason, we should be encouraging protection lengths to be based on the actual duration (and severity) of identifiable disruption - rather than the nature of the article. But I'm far from the most active admin in protection, so if there really is a common practice of longer lengths for BLPs for the same level of disruption, then it's reasonable to increase the default. ~ mazca ^talk 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The first four do make sense; indef is probably what we are going to do anyhow in those cases. The last two are technically possible (Twinkle apparently does set defaults by the reason given, and restores the default if you change the reason) but IMO unnecessary. Yes, I often do protect longer when the issue is BLP violations rather than simple vandalism, but that's my call. Basically I consider the defaults for semiprotection, EC protection, and PC protection to be pretty irrelevant, since I (like most of us, I suspect) choose a custom length for every protection I issue. I probably use 2 days for semi less than 5% of the time, and as for PC, one month is almost never enough. So the defaults aren't all that important. (Now if we want to talk about a default that is stupid and makes no sense, how about "31 hours" for a block?) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance in creating AfD

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 am trying to send Maria Ogedengbe to AfD, but the discussion page may not be vcreated beaise of a regex block.

Please will a frinedly admin create the discussion on my behalf?

The AfD rational is at Talk:Maria Ogedengbe#Intended AfD nomination rationale and is sufficent in my view to complete the nominaton Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: There's an active PROD on that page - do you intend to object to the PROD as controversial? If not, why not just let the PROD expire? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, I have also endorsed the PROD, but I think I would prefer AfD on the basis that it prevents broadly similar re-creations. I'm easy either way, but PRODS have a habit of vanishing Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that AfD is the way to go here; for the sake of 168 hours, it puts recreation firmly within the CSD criteria. I find this often saves time in the long run. This is also a BLP; we should be looking at reasons for keeping it, rather deleting it. (Incidentally, I see the article's been here over 9 years—so its deletion is unlikely to be completely uncontroversial.) ——Serial 14:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I Agree with you. I just need some help, please, to achieve it technically Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Timtrent, I misunderstood you, my fault. But, anyway, I've created the AfD and added your rationale from the article talk which you can edit as you like, of course. All the best! ——Serial 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Thank you for your help. It is much appreciated. I was simply technically prevented from doing this myself. Fiddle Faddle 14:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help, anytime. ——Serial 14:48, 2 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 Help!

Please save me from Hatchens. I am afraid. I came here after suggested by Adamant1. I just want to put in to the notice of Wikipedia's admins. I don't know why Hatchens is so offensive on me. He nominated all the articles created by me. Even i never face this user in past in any edit war or something else. After all this, I have checked Hatchens account and found some intersting facts, please refer below.

Hatchens is nominating the articles for deletion without checking the references. Most of his nominations are false and those articles saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" or "Soft Delete". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" results. Please help! Randfiskin (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens's AFD stats look fine. Only 3 AFDs relate to the OP, none of them listed above, and all still open (though all going off-topic), Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), V-NOVA, and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. The OP's outrage seems to have been triggered by an allegation of paid editing which they have tried to remove but not addressed. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

While I think Hatchens is probably on the nose with the WP:PAID thing, I am tempted to concur with Adamant1 suggestion that as it's pretty there's something off about both of you and you obviously have a problem with each other that needs to to be worked out...Maybe these nominations should be put on hold for and you should take it to ANI, because I don't think this is the place to litigate your personal issues ([20]). FTR, I already voted in one of them (which brought me here). Incidentally, can I also suggest that both Hatchens and Randfiskin cease bolding their every reply to each other?! It doesn't give the comment any more authority, but actually distracts from what you are each saying, as well as making the page near-unreadable. ——Serial 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear ——Serial, your concern has been duly noted. Will follow your suggestion to avoid any such distraction. Thank you. -Hatchens (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unbolding performed successfully at other two AfD discussions - V-NOVA and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. -Hatchens (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait are the previous CEO of Moz (marketing software)? I saw this on my watchlist and thought this might be in relation to my deletion nomination of that page. But looks like it has nothing to with that. Are you in any way related to Special: Contributions/Randfish? I don't know how much WP:IMPERSONATE applies since Rand Fishkin is a public figure but not *that* public; he had also requested that his Wikipedia page be deleted. Also, your page creations do look very suspicious from a paid editing angle. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the articles - the overall editing pattern is also suspicious. MER-C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MER-C, adding more to your suspicion. If we take this article - Vogue Institute of Art & Design. Kindly, have a look at the edits done by Vexations in support of the creator on July 27, 2020. Also, do note the edit summary - "press releases, primary sources". Now, when this article put on the AfD discussion; the creator Randfiskin gets active to defend the page(s). But, kindly do note, all critical edits of removing the very same promotional material taken over by Vexations and Bri. For more details, click here and click here. Both are highly experienced editors with a track record of more than a decade of editing (collectively speaking) with an ample amount of clout by being part of various user groups, except "Wiki Administrators". Now, there are two questions that I would like to ask myself and others in this discussion thread - 1) Are we looking at a network of Editor IDs (new and old) trying to game the system, or 2) My assessment is going wrong somewhere in between? Both the questions, I cannot answer with such little experience (as rightly suggested by Randfiskin). I hope, I can derive some learning from here. This may be the first time... I have been tagged and notified to WP:ANB, But, believe me, I will be here more often... of course as per courtesy calls raised by the other creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatchens (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm blocking OP temporarily for their personal attacks against Hatchens. Hatchens nominated all three articles in good faith with policy-based rationales, which are now subject to a community review. Rather than civilly discussing the nominations, they are aggressively attacking Hatchens, dragging up AfDs that didn't agree with him in an attempt to invalidate him, saying he's destroying Wikipedia and needs to be blocked immediately. Uh, no. We're not doing this. 72 hours for now, though it should be reviewed whether this is a WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hate speech on editor's 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 have found this custom infobox on this user's user page, complete with a disgusting hate-speech edit summary. I am alarmed that this disgusting content has been allowed to remain on an editor's page for years without censure. This is a crystal-clear violation of WP:NONDISCRIM and must be subject to censure. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There was a big discussion about this particular userbox some time ago, and I forget the outcome of it. However given the edit-summary, I have removed and revision-deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If any admin feels that this is worth a sanction, please feel free, though I'd point out it was added three years ago. And Archon 2488, this was not a great idea, even in response to something so offensive. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your very prompt response to this, but I would also respectfully suggest you don't get to tell gay people how they are allowed to respond to the hateful attitudes that are directed against them. I can absolutely promise you, we know more about it than you do. If the hateful content is gone and the editor doesn't persist in their bigotry I am happy to drop it. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well a few things. Firstly that is not actually a policy. Secondly having a userbox giving your political/cultural/social/religious beliefs/views on your userpage is not forbidden - if it was then there are probably hundreds that need to be got rid of (which I think should be done anyway). The edit summary is offensive and should probably be hidden. Your best bet for the userbox is to nominate it at WP:MFD or WP:TFD (I forget which) and see if there is any appetite for removing it. The simple fact is its probably been there so long because no one has seen it, and those who have are loath to start policing personal views. As everyone is offended by something. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not "policing personal views". The issue is that seeing anti-LGBT hate speech is likely to have the sole effect of making LGBT people less willing to participate, because they have been intimidated by a bigoted attitude, compounded by the fact that it has not been censured in three years. Homophobia is not "a personal view"; it is the oppression of a group of people. Comparing views such as this to, say, your personal view on the best flavour of ice cream, is dangerously misunderstanding the social dynamics at play here. People like this will test the waters of bigotry to see what they can get away with; people like me have had to deal with them for our entire lives. We know very well what they are. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That is one viewpoint yes. But if you want to start calling people who believe marriage is between men and women only 'homophobes' then you are likely to end up on the reciept of a warning for making personal attacks. In short, if you dont like a userbox, nominate it for deletion, see if the community agrees with you. If it does, it gets deleted and problem ends. If it doesnt, then its something you will need to learn to live with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling out bigotry is not a personal attack. People who hold homophobic views such as you describe are objectively and correctly described as homophobes. Gay people have already learned to live with it, thanks, and we're kinda past it. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, my mates. The infobox in question says that I consider marriage to be able to be performed exclusively between one man and one woman. Is that considered hate speech? Lmao! (I'm an atheist, btw.)--Adûnâi (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, the legal systems of the vast majority of developed countries now disagree with you. As does the WP non-discrimination policy. It's not relevant that you're an atheist; it's relevant that you posted hateful content on WP and are unrepentant about it. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, that is a proposed draft. It is not a policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You're making the case for turning this into a policy ASAP. Actually, does WP have a robust policy on this already? If not, it should have. Fortunately, this has been my first need to invoke it. Regardless of whether there is a formal policy document, there are basic standards of decency you can appeal to; nobody should really need a detailed document to tell them that hate-speech edit summaries are unacceptable. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that Adûnâi is being misleading. The hate speech was in the edit summary, not the userbox. El_C 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: I realise that; I was merely pointing out that it is not necessary to stoop to their level. @Only in death: It wasn't a template user box; the code was manually inserted, possibly because the original userbox was deleted, although I can't remember what it was called and therefore can't check. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I very rarely use unparliamentary language of any sort on WP. When I do, it is warranted. In this context, a member of an oppressed group angrily protesting someone using slurs against them (whatever the context, and however long ago, since it was not removed, one has to assume they still endorse it), is not stooping to the level of the person using hate speech. Yes, I got irrationally enraged seeing that rank hate speech in a project that I participate in. If you encountered slurs describing the kind of human being you are in a similar context, I expect you might have a similar reaction; and you would be entitled to. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was having a look. There are a couple of similar userbox's in the noticeboard archives, with pretty much every discussion ending non-commitedly. I am more annoyed at the complete lack of any real interaction with the editor here and kneejerk straight to indef block. No attempt to explain why etc. Just the 'indef block now bow down and say you are sorry' attitude that is prevalent amongst the worst admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you have such a distorted view of WP:GAB. El_C 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And perhaps as an admin you should read WP:BLOCK, shall I quote it for you? Specially WP:NOPUNISH: "Blocks should not be used: to retaliate, to disparage, to punish or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. This has all the marks of a retaliatory punishing block, where is no current conduct issue. Unless of course you did some homework and found the user has been behaving problematically in the last few months? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I deem this to be so beyond the pale and intolerable to warrant that action, regardless of your interpretation of WP:BLOCK as it pertains to this matter. If there is an admin who wishes to unblock, they can discuss the matter with me further. El_C 14:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Beyond the pale. El_C 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block preemptively. I had a look and wasn't going to bother since they put that box up three years ago and editors are free to have opinions here even if those opinions are objectively disgusting, but coming back to this discussion defending their homophobia in a way clearly meant to cause offense is a free express pass to the exit. I would have myself but El C beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So now an editor has been blocked who has been here for 6 years for a single edit 3 years ago. So what exactly would they need to do to get that block lifted? Or can we all start trawling people's edit histories to find offensive summaries? Did they have a history of making offensive edits? Did anyone check? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter: hate speech that explicit needs to be disavowed in the strongest possible terms. As for an unblock, I have noted to the user what they need to do on that front. El_C 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes you demanded they retract a 3 year old edit which had already been revision deleted and so unable to be seen. "You cannot remain an editor in good standing on this project with that "A sodomite bait added" statement on your record, unless you categorically retract it — I don't care what else you do around here". Its not enough that it is no longer on the record, they also have to kowtow and abase themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. El_C 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that this section is titled "Hate speech on editor's page" not "Hate speech in editors contribution history". It is not an unreasonable jump for them to conclude that it was the userbox that is being hate speech, rather than the edit summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So...? That has been clarified. And I said they were misleading, not intentionally misleading. El_C 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: I considered the infobox itself to be hate speech, because it is an explicit statement that members of a minority group do not deserve access to fundamental human rights. It is an explicit endorsement of oppression, and its sole effect on WP is to create a hostile climate for LGBT editors. It is unacceptable for that reason alone. The edit summary merely clarified the bigoted intent of the editor, as if that was ever in reasonable doubt. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: I am afraid you are not the arbiter of "wiki respectability", and nor do you decide what the effect of something is (sole or otherwise) in a community-based project. What you do get to do is file at WP:MFD for the community to judge. All the best! ——Serial 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not use the term respectability. I said that the language was objectively oppressive, not that it was not "respectable". As an LGBT person, I can tell you that such language does have that effect on me, and I am sure it would have a similar effect on other LGBT people. I don't know what else "decide" could mean here. Hate speech exists for that sole purpose, and it is never acceptable in civil society; making this a "debate" serves only to empower people who promote it. And I submit to you that that is not compatible with WP's fundamental aims, or the aims of any community project. And, in this case, I have filed a request for arbitration, so I do not understand your objection. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think implying that we're supporting/empowering homophobes is a bit of a stretch Ed6767 talk! 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• FYI The following similar userboxes exist; User:Junglecat/marriage (153 userpages) User:UBX/onemanonewoman (107 userpages) User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/LGBT0 (5 user pages). There are others, but as far as I can see they only exist on the userpages of their creators. User:UBX is an "official" Wikipedia userbox account, and all three are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues/02. There's a few others on that page that I'm looking askance at, as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be important to distinguish however that just because somebody expresses these opinions, it does not necessarily mean they are homophobic, nor are these statements inherently homophobic or hate speech. Ed6767 talk! 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is in no way important to say that homophobes are not really homophobic, or to try to save them from the censure that their oppressive, dehumanising, and evil views deserve in civil society. Anyone who has an infobox saying that gay people do not deserve marriage, women are less intelligent, black people are less valid as human beings, endorsing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, etc. deserves swift censure. I cannot believe I am having to type this in 2020. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I am 100% in support of LGBT rights and am taken back by that text box, in the context of larger society, one speaking that gays don't have the right to marry cannot be taken as hate speech, given that this remains a fundamental part of the Christian belief system at the core (though many denominations have come to their senses on this). We can't censor that because it may be unpopular and not reflect the more common public opinion but it can't be defined as hate speech. (The edit summary with the user box, on the other hand, showed a clear hate speech attempt, and so its removal was 100% appropriate). As noted above, if we took this userbox as something that had to be removed, there would be hundreds of similar boxes expressing religious and political stances that would similarly have to be removed. We have to recognize that hate speech and the line is defined by where the larger public perception is, not where editors think it might be. --Masem (t) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And this is pretty much where I knew it would end up. Moral and ethical policing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Archon 2488, it does not say "gay people do not deserve marriage", it says that they believe marriage should be held between a man and a woman. These opinions are opinions, and any assumption of explicit homophobia brought from such opinions is essentially through implication, which clearly varies from person to person. If a user has not expressed explicitly homophobic views, I see no reason why these userboxes would be problematic. A one that would be however would be a userbox that explicitly states "gay people do not deserve marriage". Ed6767 talk! 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the substantive difference between those two wordings of the same homophobic belief? They are both clear and unambiguous statements that people who belong to a certain group are unworthy of exercising a fundamental human right. That is not the sort of "view" that is worthy of respect in a democratic society, and failing to condemn it can only bring WP into disrepute. There is nothing to be gained by defending it, except telling gay people you care more about bigots who despise them than you do about them. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Advocating to suppress the views of your opponents, rather than countering their arguments, isn't a good stance to take. It is perfectly reasonable for people to have their own beliefs about what is and what is not. Remember, tolerance is a funny thing - trying to enforce tolerance of one viewpoint is by necessity enforcing intolerance of another. Meet in the middle - if someone don't want a gay marriage, they don't have to get one. A userbox stating their opinion (which for better or for worse is held by significant parts of the world population still) is IMHO fine, and I disagree with the revdel of the userpage content in that regard. That being said, I strongly agree with the revdel of the edit summary, and I'm not opposed to the block, though I probably wouldn't have placed it myself based only on that edit. stwalkerster (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting I agree with stwalkerster. While this view might not be your own morality, it’s still a view that’s held by significant parts of both Western and non-Western societies, and is an active topic of political debate in many countries. I’ve written an essay on blocking people for hate speech, and I strongly support continuing to do so. I just there’s a difference between a userbox that promotes a view of morality that is different than the norm in liberal societies, and a userbox that calls for violence or active harassment against gay people. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I have been an outspoken fan of gay marriage since the early 80s, was an advocate for transgender rights in the mid 90s, and continue to hold those opinions strongly. But yeah, views like "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", while in my opinion are ignorant and wrong-headed are not something we should be blocking people for. That said, while I see the advantages of having such things on one's homepage (can see biases etc.), I do wonder if any things like this (supporting or disavowing different views) really belongs here. It's something like a workplace that way. (That said, I do have a sign on my office that expresses support of the LGTB movement, so maybe not a great argument...) Hobit (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

White savior complex

Caveat lector: I can't read what was revdelled, but if all it was was "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman", then thanks for the intention, and please unblock the user. I don't agree with it (who wants your heteronormativity anyway?), I don't like it, but as long as he doesn't support gay bashing, then I don't really care for it either. You can ask him to remove it and he should comply, but you shouldn't indef block him unless his views leak into the realms of WP:NEUTRALITY or WP:PA. I considered Userbox:Hezbollah much more offensive, and the guy there was blocked for only 24h; but the most offensive, in my view, is the fact that racism, antisemitism and LGBTx-phobia leak into articles, and my tools as an editor for dealing with them are limited. As things stand, even stating that we have some racist/antisemitic/LGBTx-phobic editors might get me sanctioned (the smart ones don't have a "I am a racist" infobox, do they?), let alone that they inject their views into articles. So thanks for the infobox, but please unblock the user and pay more attention to what's taking place where it matters. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the block was the edit summary which read: A sodomite bait added. El_C 16:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Give him a proper hearing and have him apologize. By the time the hearing has ended he's been blocked for a week, and have had some time to ponder his life (/marital) choices. François Robere (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The hearing can commence via WP:GAB. El_C 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

For a 3 year old edit summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. El_C 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So what current conduct issue did you block for again per the requirements at WP:BLOCK? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the prospective unblocking admin wishes to go ahead with an unblock, they are free to discuss the matter further with me. Otherwise, this is too beyond the pale so as to warrant immediate sanction, regardless of the timeline. El_C 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, I require an answer per WP:ADMINACCT, what current conduct issue did you block for as per the requirements at WP:BLOCK. What ongoing behaviour did this block prevent? If you refuse to answer, I shall assume you blocked per what your own words here imply, for their edit summary from 3 years ago, rather than any ongoing behavioural issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C, could you please explain the "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" principle to me? For some reason I am having trouble understanding how to apply it today. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not willing to take a chance with hate speech of that potency, I'm sorry. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a very good point. These views were expressed 3 years ago, the user has showed no signs of homophobic behaviour past this edit afaik - so how is a block meant to do anything past state "homophobia bad and we won't stand for it!" - surely that's just against WP:NOPUNISH? A revdel and a warning would've been perfectly acceptable IMO for content that old for an otherwise constructive and good faith editor. Ed6767 talk! 16:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not punitive. It is highly disruptive and, preventatively, I am unwilling to take the chance of it repeating, even if that happens years from now. I suggest the user employ Template:Unblock if they wish to see the block lifted. El_C 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So in order to prevent some hypothetical future offense (despite they dont appear to have done anything in the intervening 3 years) rather than any ongoing issues, you indefinately blocked them? Glad we got that sorted out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It isn't hypothetical to me. El_C 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but since you appear to be ignoring the blocking policy and think instead of "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;" WP:BLOCKP means "an editor may do something in the future I dont like" I feel your judgement on this lacks anything based in policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No. No to this user engaging in hate speech, even if it happens every few years. El_C 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A 3 year old edit summary is not 'engaging' in hate speech by any definition of engaging. And you have just said you blocked for what they might do in the future rather than any actual evidence they were being disruptive on an ongoing basis. You havnt even got two instances to indicate there was something resembling a pattern of behaviour that means future disruption was likely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a pattern is necessary. This is so beyond the pale, it is, again, best resolved through WP:GAB, an evaluation which another admin will be tasked to determine. El_C 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC)You dont think when blocking to prevent future behaviour, you need to have some evidence that future behaviour is likely to occur? Thats an interesting defense for a block I will admit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this user "does this every few years" rather than "did this once"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered that question, which at this point seems rhetorical. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Why wasn't this guy blocked? Is "sodomite" worse than "neo-Nazi"? François Robere (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A user who has been subject to intense on and off-wiki harassment is given some leeway. So, a final warning was issued, instead. El_C 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Francois! If you’re going to drag my name into some unrelated drama with some of your nonsense please at least have the courtesy to ping me. I don’t appreciate you agitating against me and talking behind my back like this. Oh, and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND please. Volunteer Marek 17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this user has also subjected me to some harassment, and no one until ArbCom did anything (and even they were pretty timid [21]). He's still hounding me on account of my opinions and my supposed associations (I have the diffs, thanks for asking), and I care much more about that than some future hypothetical whatever from a user whose worst tendencies manifest in infoboxes. François Robere (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to submit a well-documented report that stands in its own right. El_C 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't work out for me at all - surely, seeing as this is only a single case, committed three years ago, shouldn't there just have been a warning for this user too? There is no real evidence that this user would be homophobic on-wiki again, especially considering that they're a Wikignome, so, I'm still completely unsure what this block was meant to achieve past disparaging other users and punishing such behaviour - again, "homophobia bad and we won't stand for it!" Ed6767 talk! 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, for hate speech of such potency, I am unwilling to chance it. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which will be buried in the depths of AE after that user and his friends storm me like a medieval castle? No thanks. I'd rather just post a one-liner to ANI claiming some form of bias that's more in vogue, maybe that'll get me some attention. François Robere (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help about this perennial dispute by virtue of a one-liner here seems unlikely, in my view, but you do as you see fit, François Robere. El_C 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like El_C says FR, file a report and we’ll see how it shakes out and who’s harassing who. If you’re unwilling to do that stop trying to link me to some completely unrelated drama. In fact that by itself should be sanctionableWP:BOOMERANG as it very much looks like you’re trying to associate my name with this user box guy (whoever that is) in an underhanded way. Volunteer Marek 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, this user should stay blocked. Here's an edit where they ridiculously bemoan "widespread anti-racist bias" on Adolf Hitler. What about this insane edit where he says "Is she a Jew? She looks like one.[...] We can't have too many Jewish scientists.", and then spurts out the clearly baiting "How can my comment about her being a Jew be considered inflammatory or a libel? Are we in Nazi Germany? I'm confused." For those who are less active on social media sites, the term "sodemite" is often used to refer to Homosexuals by Groypers and Tradcaths, proud self admitted fascists who refer almost exclusively refer to Africans as "Monkeys" and "Niggers", and actively endorse the mass killing of minorities and those who disagree with them. Just a few months ago, we had an incident where a respected long term editor- and a good friend of mine- was doxxed by a fascist, nationalist news organization and forced off wikipedia. These people should not be defended, they only want to rip down those who advocate for basic human dignity and kindness and destroy their lives. They stand against everything that makes Wikipedia good. Sorry for getting all passionate, but this is important to me. Fascists are bad people who want to destroy everything that is good with a selfish vendetta, and should be shown the door with prejudice. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, thank you for these diffs. My views expressed above regarding this block being purely based on one incident 3 years ago, but upon seeing this consistent behaviour, I agree completely. Ed6767 talk! 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's ok, you didn't know. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, There is a difference between a madman and a Mad man. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

But that's not why the guy was blocked, is it? And passion is important. I'm angry at how easy it was to get that guy blocked - on an infobox and edit summary - when there's so much worse going on that isn't even touched. If anything, your diffs are proof of that. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the user was not blocked for the userbox. El_C 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, he was blocked for the edit summary! Yes, we know. Thank you. What would we have done etc. François Robere (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't take that tone with me, François Robere. El_C 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to disagree with El C's original block, since it was based off their old edits/summary and the conversation to that point. Moneytree's edits have, in effect, provided a viable after the fact justification. There is still a potential dispute over prevention/punitive, but it's now vastly more reasonable territory. After the fact justification is concerning, since it doesn't resolve the initial judgement, and I also feel the ADMINACCT call was fair, but that can be more considered a viewpoint note for the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• I see the edit summary as evidence that someone is xenophobic to the extreme because of how the word "sodemite" is used in internet culture. Indeffing someone off of that is more than understandable; I'm assuming El C is familiar with the use of the word. But I understand that you likely aren't familiar with the areas of the internet that El C is, so you may not understand the context. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I take objections to the block under advisement, but I still stand behind the block at this time. El_C 17:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Nosebagbear here. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would note that while you can obviously agree with the points I raised, your other statements above, including your sub-title indicate that your viewpoints, both generally, but also on the nature of El C's actions, are significantly different to my own. My statements do not indicate support for all of yours Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Not at El C specifically, actually; rather, the phenomenon. The title refers to the fact that this mode of action is focused, at the end, at people as collections of stereotypes, rather than in their individual identities - "I only care about you if you're black / gay / otherwise disenfranchised, and I'll only treat you as such." It's detached from what the person actually experiences. In this whole thread there were just three comments that I saw suggesting some personal relation to the LGBTx community (maybe there were more); everyone else react... on what basis exactly? Who here let themselves play the "police" that tries to prevent eg. me from being wronged against? And at the same time, the actual wrongs I've experienced in this community are thrown to the curb, because I didn't give them a catchy enough title. It's not only outraging from a justice perspective, it's insulting. Hence the title. So I appreciate the good intentions, but I'd rather be treated as a person than as a stereotype. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just to add a few to Moneytree's diffs. This remark, and this one about "rampant homosexual propoganda". This inflammatory description of the word gender as "made-up and politicized", This rather odd suggestion that "Negro Africa" is the correct name for Sub-Saharan Africa. There's a lot of gnoming, but in between it, some worrying stuff in their contribs. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Now that I’ve been dragged over here I might as well comment on the issue at hand. Even if that user box thing was “too stale” the other diffs provided by User:Moneytrees pretty clearly show this user should remain blocked. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Meaning that El_C was right but for the wrong reasons/not for the reason he gave? ——Serial 17:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • No, meaning simply that this is a user that should remain blocked. Nothing other than that. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• I suppose the elephant in the room is that the blocking admin has a homage for Vladimir Lenin on his userpage, notwithstanding that Lenin was an instigator of terror and personally ordered cold-blooded murder of others for no fault of their own (Lenin's Hanging Order etc.) --Pudeo (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  You are entitled to your view, but this can be said of multiple political figures, Western and non-Western alike. El_C 17:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do find that be in bad taste, but then again, I've lived in a city that has a Lenin museum. --Pudeo (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is a rich comment coming from a user proudly displaying a swastika on their user page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all, considering the swastika was adopted as an airforce roundel before the Nazi party even existed in 1918.[22]. --Pudeo (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Pudeo and Ivanvector: bringing this up is offtopic and quite petty. There's nothing to be said about this. We're all entitled to our views, that's the end of this matter. Ed6767 talk! 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  No-no, please continue. I'm anxious to see who joins next. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  I was expecting a giant swastika... but after scanning the DC-3 for a full minute, I noticed it in the bottom left corner on a... umm... is that an American P-36? (That's a genuine question, I didn't know the U.S. supplied aircraft to Finland). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Proudly displaying a swastika on their user page" does not even come close to accurately describing a user page with a picture of an airplane in which another airplane in the background has a swastika symbol, and noting that "The swastika was widely used in Europe at the start of the 20th century." That kind of spin would make a politician blush. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, Mr rnddude: I hope that Pudeo will not think this improper of me - sincere apologies if so, but I think it's only fair to mention this. Ivanvector may have been remembering an older version of Pudeo's userpage, which was deleted in 2018 and so is not visible publicly. I too remember that page, and have only just now gone and looked at the current version, which I think is infinitely preferable. 'Nuff said, I hope. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  How is Lenin the elephant in the room? What was Lenin's position on gay marriage? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well, he was Lenin the Elephant I suppose. ——Serial 18:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, the one who redistributed peanuts to the other elephants. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  [23] Volunteer Marek 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit's and Moneytrees's diffs show that El C used good judgment in applying the prevenative block to stop what was obviously an ongoing pattern of behavior. There is no room for any reasonable doubt this would have continued.   // Timothy :: talk  17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• If someone publicly refers to gay people as "sodomites", there is a 100% probability that they have publicly said other offensive things elsewhere. Nobody starts with "sodomite", and nobody stops after one "sodomite". C didn't have to go diff-diving to know that there would be other instances of hate speech; years of experience helped him instantly recognize the situation. But, Money and Girth's subsequent diffs proved it out. I think it was a good block, and I'm left wondering why this wasn't uncovered before. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

C didn't have to go diff-diving to know that there would be other instances of hate speech; years of experience helped him instantly recognize the situation. - I absolutely have to disagree. We do not allow experience to overrule evidence seeking, and never should, even where it's likely it exists. To state otherwise is an absolutely unwise approach that could only lead to massive counterexamples. Even if it were the case it would be massively against stated policy - if it was felt to be so guarnateed a shout (as in, no counterexample to be found, ever) then it should submitted as a change to policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Boomareng Request

This edit happened just today [24] and is clearly an egregious WP:PA on El_C by François Robere. Their talk page demonstrates this is an ongoing pattern of behavior that they have received numerous warnings.   // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Not at El C specifically, actually; rather, the phenomenon. The title refers to the fact that this mode of action is focused, at the end, at people as collections of stereotypes, rather than in their individual identities - "I only care about you if you're black / gay / otherwise disenfranchised, and I'll only treat you as such." It's detached from what the person actually experiences. In this whole thread there were just three comments that I saw suggesting some personal relation to the LGBTx community (maybe there were more); everyone else react... on what basis exactly? Who here let themselves play the "police" that tries to prevent eg. me from being wronged against? And at the same time, the actual wrongs I've experienced in this community are thrown to the curb, because I didn't give them a catchy enough title. It's not only outraging from a justice perspective, it's insulting. Hence the title. So I appreciate the good intentions, but I'd rather be treated as a person than as a stereotype. Thanks for asking. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice try François Robere but it is a WP:PA. Admins can deal with it here, or if they prefer, all your conduct can be bundled up and examined at ANI to see if there is a consensus about your engaging in ongoing WP:DE, WP:PA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you don't wish this, perhaps a retraction and apology would be the best course you could take.   // Timothy :: talk  17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You do what you think best, Timothy. Obviously you know about this much more than I do. I've pinged El C to my explanation, and I trust that he, like me, is more sturdy than you give him credit for. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he tried to drag my name into this piece of drama even though I have no idea who this user is what they did and am just generally completely ignorant of what this is about is also very illustrative of Francois Robere’s adversarial WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. And let me be 100% clear - I don’t appreciate him bringing me up here precisely because someone might confuse or associate me with the user that got (justly, IMO) blocked. I honestly don’t see any other reason for FR to bring me up here since I have nothing to with this except intentionally wishing to induce that kind of confusion.

His attack on El_C and his attempts to pour gasoline on the drama are also obviously motivated by the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which he brings with him from a completely different topic area. It appears that El_C has made decisions *in another topic area* that he doesn’t like (but which no one else has a problem with) so he’s chosen to comment here instead. Volunteer Marek 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And there comes the guy I just said I don't want to file against, because his friends will follow. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What friends? What are you talking about? This is another personal attack and some kind of strange insinuation.

Also, please stop moving my comments around ([25], [26]) since that makes them difficult to understand out of context. That too is at very least a breach of etiquette and more likely an attempt at trying to annoy me. They’re not your comments. Leave them alone. Volunteer Marek 17:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, why do you keep bumping your comments above others'? If you made a comment on 8:01 pm and I made a comment on 7:41 pm, why do you put yours above mine? François Robere (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not “bumping” anything. You’re the one who keeps moving my comments around so that they don’t make sense. Leave them alone. Also explain the comment you made above which appears to be ANOTHER personal attack, please. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indentation, Marek... François Robere (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone doubts how toxic this is, I now have an anonymous random gay-baiting me on my talk page. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually seeing as the account has made that one edit, very probably an SP created for that specific purpose. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Ignore them. Wikipedia has kids as well. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please tell Francois Robere to stop moving other people's comments around. In addition to making the conversation hard to follow it's just obnoxious and looks like a purposeful attempt to grief and irritate (so harassment) someone. I've asked them three times already. And this is just making an already drama-filled situation even worse. Or just topic ban him from this page, given the multiple personal attacks he's made here. Volunteer Marek 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:INDENT and WP:INTERSPERSE, Marek? François Robere (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG - FR has
  1. Dragged me into this mess even though I had absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a clear example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and of spreading disputes from other areas around Wiki.
  2. He failed to even notify me that he was talking smack behind my back, while suggesting I should be blocked for something completely unrelated. This is WP:GAME and BLOCKSHOPPING.
  3. He repeatedly moved my comments to places in the conversation where they would make no sense due to lack of context. In addition to being obnoxious and purposefully (since I asked him to stop three times) irritaing, that's also a breach of WP:3RR [27] [28] [29] [30].
  4. After being told that if he's got problems with any of my edits he should file a separate report as appropriate, he made another personal attack against me by insinuating that "my friends" were going to show here and , I don't know, be mean to him or something. All of this is completely imaginary since I don't think I would consider anyone who's commented here "a friend" (sorry guys, no offense)
  5. He insulted El_C by calling him a "white knight" in a section heading
  6. As User:TimothyBlue (not one of "my friends" though he seems alright - just haven't noticed him much before) points out, FR's talk page is a pretty good indication that he has a history of this kind of behavior. I don't know what the appropriate sanction here is - block or ban from this page or from all drama pages, but this hounding and battlegroundin' really does need to stop. Volunteer Marek 18:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support has needlessly inflamed the drama at the expense of several editor's reputations. I'm not sure what the most appropriate sanction would be. Probably a block of at least a week. - MrX 🖋 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @MrX: The point wasn't to hijack the discussion, but now that we're at this I'm not sure what to reply to. If I bring my evidence regarding VM here, then I establish the case on "hijacking". If I don't, then how do I defend myself? So what are you voting for that I should reply to? Note that much of this is actually due to VM and Timothy opening a new section etc. - my comments have been comparatively concise. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Note that much of this is actually due to VM and Timothy opening a new section etc." None of this is due to VM and myself. This is entirely a result of your conduct. Your attempt to shift responsibility rather than address the issue at hand is contributing to the problem. Address the matters at hand.   // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sigh. Yup, this is totally false. Even FR mentioning me in the first place (without letting me know) when this had nothing to do with me, was unnecessary and an obvious attempt to hijack the original thread. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Many parts of this thread are beginning to swerve incredibly off topic into an uncivil and rather pathetic battleground full of he said she said. I get it's a controversial topic, but can everyone just chill out and actually discuss without being petty? Ed6767 talk! 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Amen. Better yet, close this behemoth and let editors who feel they have been aggrieved take that elsewhere. This has become all heat and no light, it seems to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, absolutely agree. This is going nowhere fast and enough is enough. Glen 18:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• As Levivich says, nobody stops after one "sodomite". I know I certainly didn't. EEng 19:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ONCEYOU TRYA SODOMITEYOU'LL NEVER SAY"NO, NOT TONIGHT"Burma-shave Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I can wiki-die happy now. My wiki-life is complete. I have reached wiki-nirvana. EEng 23:42, 3 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.

Severe case of "I didn't hear that"

Can someone have a look at User talk:Somville243? Maybe it's time their TPA is revoked... Drmies (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, they've stopped. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Procedural question

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 have a question. If a discussion section on a talk page is collapsed for a reason that an editor disagrees with, what procedures can an editor do to uncollapse it? Thank you for the assistance. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose one would escalate to ANI. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Depends on who has done the collapsing and where the discussion is being held. If it's an uninvolved administrator it's probably unwise to just BOLDLY do it . If it's someone else, maybe it could just be reverted. But I can imagine more scenarios with silly edit wards than productive uncollapsing so I almost hesitate to note that second situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• The OP appears to be on a crusade to get The Daily Mail un-deprecated as a source, and is using a number of different tactics to go about it. The OP's thread was properly closed by an admin as there was, essentially, nothing to dispute (WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source is policy), so I would not recommend that they bring that dispute here, where it would simply be closed again. In the meantime, there's an RfC open about specific wording choices for the article in which the OP is the only fish swimming upstream against the tide of commentary.
  In other words, this is a content dispute being dealt with where content disputes are dealt with, on the article talk page, and there's no need or purpose in bringing the dispute here to be closed as a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 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.

Cup Foods

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.

---

Should Cup Foods be recreated in this manner if it was deleted at WP:RFC? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• RfD, not RFC, but the discussion that it was deleted is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Cup Foods. I think the situation is different enough to necessitate a fresh discussion. The target is different, and there is more information about Cup Foods at new target than the previous one, so it doesn't meet the sufficiently identical criterion of WP:G4. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Deleted. It was improperly recreated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 4 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.

DRV

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 folks, There are still two WP:DRV discussion that really could stand to have an admin close them. Both are fairly tricky. Both are way way past their due dates. All the regular closers at DRV have contributed I think... Hobit (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I've closed the caste-based prostitution one. The other image-based DRV is very much outside my area of Wikipedia expertise and I'm not touching it, so I'll leave it for someone (anyone?) else. ~ mazca ^talk 11:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Hobit (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Both are now closed. Thanks folks! Hobit (talk) 13:55, 4 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.

Arabian Nights disambiguation Vandalisim

Just look at Recent Changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Wiki User the 2nd, fyi, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:ANI are the correct venues for these reports. Do you mean the article or a user? Ed talk! 22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I see now, the offending IP has been blocked already and the page is back to its original state. Ed talk! 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked the IP at Arabian Nights (disambiguation) for a week for disruptive editing, persistent addition of really unhelpful entries on it. If they come back at another IP address it can be semi-protected. ~ mazca ^talk 22:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767's suggestion is correct, though, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are the places to go in these kinds of situations. Make sure you wikilink the page in question and/or the user, too, to make it easier for everyone to look into it! ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with cross-wiki abuse

Is there anywhere for coordinating responses to cross-wiki abuse? I'm trying to clean up after Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles but it's very difficult to find equivalents to ANI on other wikis. The es.wiki page linked from here is semi-protected, the pl.wiki Wikipedia article is protected with no obvious way of requesting changes etc. Is there somewhere on meta where things can be coordinated? SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging someond you personally know is easiest. If you don’t know anyone, going to the stewards list and pinging someone who is a native speaker of the language you’re looking at will also usually work. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

I've fully protected the Hagia Sophia article due to an edit war. Am signing off for the night so will leave it to the night shift to take over supervision of the article and respond to requests on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Block review

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

I blocked ObjectiveTruthIsImportant per WP:NOTHERE and because it seems to me rather unlikely that anyone whose first edit looks like this] is (a) genuinely a new user, and (b) here to help, rather than Wrong Great Rights. I have no objection to any other admin unblocking if this is thought to be wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

With a username like that? Absolutely RGW. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Let us now read from the Book of Antandrus, Chapter 72... ^Lev!v^ich 04:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like an activistic being activistic and ironic in their user name as they counter actual objectivity with their need to beat their head against the wall in an effort to prove the wall is not actually a wall. Probably sumum bonum from the standpoint of preventing further disruption. And so, QED, appropriately blocked as WP:NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Block seems appropriate to me. SQL^{Query me!} 15:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Looks good to me as well. That's pretty blatant if you ask me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Good job. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pile-on approval. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pig codes and Black codes

I was reading an article on CNN about a Louisiana Supreme Court case involving a life sentence affirmed for a black man who stole a pair of hedge clippers back in '98. The term "Pig laws" was bandied about, and when I searched it up here, there was a redirected to Black Codes (United States). However, the term 'pig' or 'pig laws' doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and I am not finding a source that uses the terms interchangeably. How would folk suggest I proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You could nominate Pig laws at RfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, if you search google books for "black codes" and "pig laws", you'll find a number of references. Quick glance, it appears "pig laws" were a subset or specific instance of "black codes". You could add it to the article for readers hitting that redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn TBANs/Blacklisting

Pinging @Floquenbeam and Deepfriedokra: who mentioned it in discussion A couple of discussions have raised issues about the additional damage people with RedWarn can cause (I should note that in each case Twinkle was noted as also having the same issues - it's a general tool point). There is a live case where it was mooted as a potential issue in ANI atm.

I dropped a query to @Ed6767: just as to the possibility of being able to blacklist problematic users from using it, which would allow a means of limiting use of RedWarn short of a full block, or at least a tool-related TBAN.

Ed6767 was commendably quick and has set up a page where admins could add users viewed as not suited to using it (we'd protect it and notify Ed before first use), and is working on the backend coding. Obviously a user could, say, switch to Twinkle but limiting issues where we can is to be appreciated.

This is partially an FYI of the potential use (hence AN, not VPR) and partially a question:

To me it seems like it should be akin removing Rollback userright from a problematic user who is unable to use Huggle properly. That would allow any admin to add a user to the list (subject to AN appeals) as well as community additions.

However, it could be interpreted as it should be purely TBAN-authorised. I felt it best to clarify this first. The blacklist page is here - Ed just wrote up the page form as it is, so there may also be specific notes in it that need amending by the community.

Viewpoints? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The wider point which would lead to less of these issues cropping up would be to raise the usage pre-reqs in the first place (e.g. extended confirmed or rollback). I can't imagine we'd be having these discussions as often if it wasn't something that anybody could pick up and run with. Darren-M talk 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(pining most active maintainer) Amorymeltzer, would you be willing to implement a blacklist of a similar fashion into Twinkle? Having one standardised blacklist for similar semi-automated tools with the rather low (auto-)confirmed might help reduce abuse on enwiki. Ed6767 talk! 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping — I noted this below, but Twinkle used to have such a list. It was removed as essentially unused and a pain to maintain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Twinkle and RedWarn should need RB (though that would absolutely be a simple way to handle it). Shifting to EC is a possibility, though I'd still be reticent - it would drop problems, significantly, certainly, but also have a significant collateral effect. If a single blacklist were possible that would be a plus, as a distinct point from minimum permission level. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be a requirement for twinkle, because we’re not really seeing problems with Twinkle. I’d prefer roll back to EC, because we’re really hesitant to yank EC, but more willing to take away rollback. I don’t like the blacklist idea because it requires demonstrated error rather than demonstrated competence. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be very easy to implement by simply changing one word in the code, but that would slash user appeal and uptake, we're already running abysmally low on editors willing to do RCP and it's hard to introduce a new tool when its user base is artificially bottlenecked by that right. Ed6767 talk! 19:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that people using red warm are starting to cause more good faith disruption than the vandals. We have bots, Huggle, Stiki, edit filters, etc. Most of the stuff that’s being reverted would get taken care of anyway. If we’re constantly having to have a discussion about Red Warn, then it is causing more harm than it’s preventing. Finding a way to help change that dynamic is what we’re after. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, I would question whether we are actually seeing such a dearth of RCPers as you think; I regularly log into Huggle to see 'nothing to review', or try to revert an edit to find I've been beaten to it. What evidence are you seeing that would suggest reducing the amount of people with access to RedWarn would have a detrimental impact on the project? Darren-M talk 19:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that 85% of the stuff I have to revert when doing RCP is not a highlighted edit, and over 50% doesn't trip any of the less dramatic warnings/tags. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M and TonyBallioni:, see above ^^ - TonyBalloni, those systems are not watertight. RCP isn't just for vandalism, but for promotional edits, spam links, poor sourcing, BLP issues and much more. STiki is dead, Huggle has a practically inaccessible and cryptic design for many non-technical users, especially ones who edit using ChromeOS devices or mobile (especially with iPadOS), an increasingly popular option, and Twinkle is good for many things, but pretty poor at for recent changes patrol - in fact, it frustrated me enough to go out of my way to create a tool to fix its issues. Here's some idea I have that could solve issues:

• Disable auto-warn for non-ECo editors
• Add automatic abuse detection systems in RedWarn (tricky but could try)
• You can still patrol RedWarn changes with the #RedWarn tag in recent changes (excluding reverts by users with rollback rights due to a weird bug)
• We're currently planning to migrate RedWarn from a userscript to toolforge also, so additional restrictions would be much, much easier to implement. The new redwarn-react project intends to make RedWarn feel much more like a tool, and help fix many of the current issues with the redwarn-web userscript.
• Integrating RedWarn more with the CVUA, or adding an "ask for help" button where you can get another more experienced RedWarn users opinion on an edit and see what actions they take, or implement a tutorial, however, this could make it feel, to some, even more "like a video game" than a powerful tool.

Quite frankly, the same issues occur with Twinkle, if not more, but as a new and more niche tool, there have been issues. This is more than a RedWarn specific problem, but due to its user-friendliness and consequential use by more inexperienced users, using RedWarn to implement new anti-abuse mechanisms to pave the way for other tools may be ideal. I'd love to hear more of people's suggestions, but I don't think restricting the entire tool to rollbackers only is the right way to go. Ed6767 talk! 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that RCP isn’t just for vandalism, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here: it’s been marketed to inexperienced users, and they’ve basically been the only people using it. Because of this, I think in its current iteration RedWarn has probably caused more damage to Wikipedia than it has cleaned up, when you consider the fact that most of this stuff would have been picked up otherwise. I don’t think it has to continue to be a net-negative tool, but it currently is because of the population that uses it. The easy way to fix that is to make it have the same requirements as other automated/semi-automated tools: that is it should have a requirement for use, not a blacklist for misuse. If you do that, I think it’ll move the tool into being really helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The marketing has never been targeted at inexperienced users, it's user-friendliness has consequentially resulted in less experienced users using it. Back during my "invite" campaign, I'd only target users with a competent knowledge of using Twinkle. The stock RedWarn EXTUB template pack doesn't actually even include an invite for non-Twinkle users - this was solely in an attempt to gather feedback from experienced editors, and to mitigate the negative impact on RedWarn's reputation newer inexperienced users would cause within the first 2 months of its existence. Again, due to its still small user base, misuse will, of course, appear more prominently than users who use the tool appropriately and in good faith. Despite this, it's still an issue, and we'll continue discussing solutions to this both here and behind the scenes to refine things and hopefully mitigate some of these issues and hopefully pull RedWarn up to the standards of more experienced editors through the redwarn-react project Ed6767 talk! 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Beside the point, but with links and rollback-in-place on recent changes, I think Twinkle hums pretty nicely there! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, to clarify, my main gripe with Twinkle for RCP is the fact that it still relies on multiple pages and things, rather than keeping one workflow all nice and bundled in one tab, it goes overboard opening a user page in a new tab, where you have to go into a little submenu and manually warn from there which can time quite some time, along with waiting for the page and Twinkle to load. Plus the "there have been x edits in a row" message, which I found quite frustrating and confusing, along with "this is no longer the latest revision" because you fill in the summary and everything and it's just like well sorry you're gonna have to do that all again - a textbook "computer says no" moment. It just slows things down and feels far less efficient, so there are definitely improvements to be made there. Ed6767 talk! 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• (e/c...sorry, I type slow and some of this is echoed above by others) Excellent; this morning, I just "enforced" a RedWarn ban by saying I'd indef block the user if they used it again. I like the idea of a blacklist much better. Three comments:
  • I would dearly love a similar way to prevent users from using Twinkle.
  • I've long been a fan of admins being able to issue topic bans and interaction bans (subject to review at WP:AN/ANI) to prevent disruption, rather than having to get advanced permission to do so at AN/ANI. It has always seemed a little crazy I can block someone indef for disruption, but not TBAN/IBAN for it. This goes double for removing access to RedWarn/Huggle/Twinkle. I'm trusted to not misuse blocking, and should be trusted to not misuse the less potent tool blacklisting. If I do misuse tool blacklisting, I'm subject to the same review process as misusing blocking. I really think it best to treat this like removing rollback, not like topic banning.
  • Thanks User:Nosebagbear for taking the initiative, and thanks User:Ed6767 for being so responsive.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree firmly with be able to add TBANs/IBANs without prior approval - our sole discretion siteblocks are for ultra-clearcut cases, ones which shouldn't just be resolvable with IBANs/TBANs. AE is ideologically unpleasant to me already - but that's a major discussion to hold elsewhere. However, tool blacklisting, I agree, would be a good discretionary activity. I should note that appeals should need a consensus to uphold the penalty, not overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that, with the implementation of partial blocks, we can basically topic ban people from an article or a set of articles already. Editors can now even be blocked from entire namespaces...

Anyway, wrt your proposal here, I'm certainly in favour of allowing admins to blacklist editors unilaterally subject to appeals. Salvio 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear and Floquenbeam: I figure they're pretty different though. A TBAN or IBAN are because some folk is/are incapable of avoiding disruptive behavior in a specific area or around a specific individual; the general idea is to limit the specific realm of conflict. Misuse of a tool, though, is much more like WP:CIR issues, WP:IDHT, or just general disruptive behavior: it's a measure of basic competence. YMMV, but if someone is abusing/misusing a tool everywhere, that's just plain disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's history here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal. Basically, Twinkle had a disallow list like is being mooted here, and in the end it was done away with. A few options were discussed, which participants here might want to read through. My general thinking is that such a disallow list is unlikely to ever be heavily populated, and that if someone is abusing or misusing a tool and continues to do so despite warnings, that's disruptive and we have tools for preventing that behavior. To quote Elen of the Roads, Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. Maintaining the list is a pain and adds complexity, when disruptive behavior should be treated as disruptive behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a blacklist is useful for handling good-faith problematic use. The tools we have for preventing their mis-use, atm, are somewhat blunt when it comes to tool misuse that aren't tied to a userright. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that a block is blunt, but a user who can't figure out how to use a tool properly, and continues to use it incorrectly after being told how to remedy their behavior and/or to stop pretty quickly stops being good-faith or competent if they continue, no? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposal feels slightly premature. The community can always ban someone from using a tool at AN/ANI. Unless we're seeing repeated instances of people not following such a ban, I don't know if having a developer add technical restrictions is a good use of their time, or anyone else's. To my knowledge, not a single ban from RedWarn has been proposed at AN/ANI yet, not even the case that prompted this discussion is a clear proposal for a ban for a single user using RW. RedWarn is not that popularly used by non-rollbackers, when you look at how many reverts are made per user using the tool, that it would be too taxing to bring the especially egregious cases to AN/ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to imagine a situation where this would be legitimately useful. Without commenting specifically on RedWarn, if I were to observe someone abusing a tool, I'd block them before even considering the possibility of adding them to a "blacklist". -FASTILY 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple solution would be just to require rollback to use it and then yank rollback if there are issues. Light bulb moment, Tony. El_C 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems silly to me to have a blacklist for tools that do fundamentally unprivileged operations like RedWarn. A good-faith user will stop using it when they're told they're banned from doing so, and a bad-faith user can trivially circumvent any such checks that are added. The blacklist page itself even says so: if a user can bypass the permission restrictions, they can likely bypass the blacklist too, so a block may be advisable instead of blacklisting Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't tried RedWarn, but my gut tells me that it ought to be for rollbackers only - that is the norm for powerful high-speed reverting tools that issue automated warnings, like Huggle or Stiki (although with Stiki I believe that it was possible to be added to a list of non-rollbackers that were given access).

To go off at a bit of a tangent - I haven't felt tempted to try RedWarn myself, since I mostly use a Windows laptop for editing and am perfectly happy with using Twinkle for RC patrolling (with an occasional dip into Huggle to keep my hand in), but I can see the potential benefit of having a tool that works on different platforms. Where I really feel we have a hole in the counter-vandalism ecosystem, however, is the job that Stiki used to do - picking up old vandalism from Cluebot's queue, which made it through the Huggle/Twinkle net. I have in the past used Stiki to find flagrant BLP violations, of the 'unsourced allegations of sex offenses' kind, that went undetected for over a month. Does anyone know of any similar tools that allow you to pick up on dodgy diffs that might be days or even weeks old? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, sadly at this point the most you have is Special:Search and a few choice queries along with Wikiloop Battlefield, but I'm unsure how well that really works - and it sounds stupid but a good way to filter down long term vandalism is to go on Twitter and/or other networks and search for "wikipedia lang:en" and sort by latest - past all the whining about things that you'll come to expect on the twitter dumpster fire I've been able to filter out serious long term vandalism through there Ed talk! 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

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.

---

Resolved

So, I made a very simple question about splitting the article Falkland Islands in two articles. I got no plausible answers, but this is totally unacceptable. This user has been already blocked here and at Commons for disruptive editions and POV war. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Your question got 6 responses. The answer was no. DrKay (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

DrKay, why you changed the title of this thread and marked as Resolved? This is about the behaviour of a user, not about the article. The user in question attacked the spanish community by claiming "faking" every time, and no actions taken? Suspicious, --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC) To quote you there: "As we at the Spanish Wikipedia" - if you identify as (in part) the architect of that wikipedia's articles, and want to duplicate it here, it is not unreasonable to take issue with the content of the articles there. Are the Spanish wikipedia using faked images of historical documents? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

«Are the Spanish wikipedia using faked images of historical documents?» To be fake, those documents should be faked by users rather than Argentina, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV, as every know, but prefer to continue with this biased discussion: Both documents (from argentina and the UK) are legitime. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC)You know, I was tempted to write a fairly long explanation of what NPOV actually means with regards to biased sources and reliable sourcing, but I suspect from your reply it would be wasted. Suffice to say this is a non issue. You asked a question and had sufficient replies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes the Spanish wikipedia uses photoshop manipulated versions of documents and have been for years. For example, the article over there uses a photoshopped embellishment of an 1820 Times article, it's copied from a pamphlet produced by the Argentine embassy. The editors on the Spanish wikipedia use it, knowing it is faked. As to a clear violation of WP:NPOV, the text that accompanies it reflects Argentine state propaganda. I find it illuminating that you're attempting to justify fake history. WCM_email 15:23, 6 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.

Need some admin eyes

...on the section Talk:George_Floyd#Why_does_this_man_have_an_article?, the very title of which is offensive and really should be changed. HalfShadow there makes some pretty damn insensitive remarks, and I'm biting my tongue, and doubles down on them after being apprised of BLP discretionary sanctions. Note: HalfShadow was warned last year already, by Doug Weller, of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 area. On top of that they throw in a pretty disrespectful and at the very least uncollegial comment directed at Valereee. What HalfShadow has to say on the topic of George Floyd is revolting, and no editor with such experience should talk like that. I would like for a neutral admin to assess if DS are applicable here. I mean, I'd rather someone talk some sense into them, but I don't have much faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I closed that section. No good will come of it. HalfShadow is, I think, unsuited for work here. Jorm (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Good move. But is it enough? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, damn, that's you on the Mont Blanc? Wow. Anyway, feel free to be uninvolved enough to take action... Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Off topic, but yeah, mad props for that achievement. I can barely climb the hill in my neighborhood.)--Jorm (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Disgusting attitude. User should be cbanned. Or at least topic banned from AP2. Valeince (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yep - I've been on top of Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn plus a few other summits, though that profile pic was on the tripoint of Mont Dolent. But, returning to the issue, personally, I would have deleted HShadow's post immediately as "wholly inappropriate" rather than bothering to responding to it. But as we're 'not censored' I'm now reluctant to delete the whole thread. I'm minded to use a cot template, titled 'not relevant' or 'off topic', which seems most appropriate. I've not checked DS issues, but feel a block for one utterly dumbass and offensive comment probably isn't right, either. Thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've archived it per WP:NOTFORUM since, as Jorm put it, nothing was going to come of it that would improve the article. I don't think this warrants a block. I haven't looked through the contribs, so maybe a TBAN would be useful if they have a pattern. Absent that, suggest they stick to the anti-vandalism work rather than starting drama on talk pages. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Good move. Agreed that a block for just that utterly gross insensitivity isn't quite right. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have looked through their contribs going back to October 2019 and don't find any other edits in AP that raise an eyebrow for me. I found one COVID related edit that isn't great. However, neither of these are a pattern for me and so as long as this disruption doesn't continue at Floyd I don't think DS/GS sanction is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely argue against removing the section from the talk page. Sometimes, a section should exist if for no other reason than to serve as an example of what not to do in an article/discussion; I think Wugapodes' deletion was inappropriate.

There are a ton of editors contributing to the project who - if they actually interjected their personal credos and viewpoints here, would be ban-hammered into oblivion. We have to accept that we are going to have users who are white supremacists, black supremacists, anti-Semites, pedophiles and other disgusting sorts. Yet, none of them bring to the table what HalfShadow did; it was exceedingly unprofessional, and it should be preserved as an acute example of what we are not going to allow here. Come here to edit, and leave your bent at the door. People learn differently, and often need an object example of what not to do.

I would also submit that should HalfShadow display this behavior again, they should be efficiently and expediently shown the door and thrown bodily through it. That sort of display is corrosive to ALL of Wikipedia, and if the user cannot separate his beliefs from his editing, they have no place here. (Update: looking at this person's block log or a dozen or so block for the same thing, I think the defenestration choice should be the first considered if HalfShadow cannot get a handle on their problematic behavior) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I kind of wonder if they were just having a bad day. A lot of folks are under a lot of stress. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think racism is caused by stress usually, but I digress. Valeince (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

reasonable point —valereee (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Permission error creating a redirect

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 create a redirect from 🧑👩👨📷📺 to Person, woman, man, camera, TV. I'm getting a permission error trying to do so. Thank you. Komischn (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but that's a dumb redirect.  Not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I see a need for this redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone types that into the search box I'll eat my hat. Which is handy, as my hat is made of sausages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dumb redirect, but so is the whole issue. Komischn (talk) 17:05, 10 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.

White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

Hello there. The White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article is subjected to 1RR and a short time ago from my time of writing, I twice violated this term. When it was brought to my attention I self-reverted (oddly by undoing another editor who himself self-reverted for the same reason). Either way, I am pretty certain it has been resolved amicably. Having looked again, there is nothing immediately striking to an unsuspecting editor that 1RR applies here. I've tried the cache feature after hitting 'edit' whereby I typed '1RR' and 'revert' both of which found zero results. I would initially have messaged user:Clpo13 who in 2018 protected the article but he appears to have been inactive these past two months and so I am coming here. Is there any way the condition can be made more prominent? That is to say visible to any person hitting 'edit'. If there is a way of checking then I confess that I have forgotten how to do this. It may just be my preference settings as I don't use the visual feature. I appreciate any assistance here. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a banner at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) that explains the situation. --Jayron32 19:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks. Question: why may any person thinking about restoring a reverted edit less than 24 hours ago consult the talk page? Surely the caveat needs to be somewhere along his route to the action. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

An editnotice is probably what you want, as it will show up prominently when editing the article. Wikipedia:Editnotice has information on how to get one added. clpo13_(talk) 00:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done this. El_C 12:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clpo13, @El C, thank you both. That's this thread matter resolved. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected hacked account

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.

---

EVITANDY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In 2015 and before this user was contributing normally before turning inactive. A few days ago the account became active again, but has only added fabricated nonsense and rubbish.

Most likely explanation is that the account was hacked (seen it before), but I'm not sure where to report that? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that it has ever been done before like this, but perhaps the talkpage for Wikipedia:Compromised accounts? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 72 hours because of the sudden spate of vandalism. If the behavior resumes, the next block can be longer or indef. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a hacked account here, I'm seeing a long-term (though perhaps intermittent) vandal. This added without sources? The creation of Alexander 'Beef' Stewart? I've upped to indef, as I think we'd need some explanation to unblock - hope you don't mind User:Cullen328. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• That's fine, Boing! said Zebedee. Thanks for looking deeper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• If anyone has the time to spare, EVITANDY has made quite a few edits to Taboo (musical) without sources - I've removed one totally unsourced section. The article is horribly bloated in places (especially the Plot section), and it could well be stuffed with further dubious content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Wow, I had completely missed their older edits were also questionable. Thanks for digging deeper, Boing! said Zebedee! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:48, 10 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.

Unblock request by The3Kittens

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 is a unblock request by The3Kittens, who was requesting through via UTRS. Here is the request.

"I apologize for my behavior, I understand that I have to add content networks, shows, programs and a warning message on the Chutti TV article to prevent Davey2010 to remove them, the next day, I was blocked by RickinBaltimore for making legal threats. I understand that I will not involve in legal threats and if I will do it again I will get blocked forever. Please unblock my account, my account's underlying IP address, my account's talkpage, fellow accounts TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1, TSMWCFan2 and TSMWCfanboy3. We will understand that never involve in legal threats, vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit-warring, violating the 3RR, spamming, conflict of interest anymore. Unblock and unban all my accounts. We will only make consensus towards users. I will understand that I will only make useful contributions. I will never involve in edit-warring anymore. CLSStudent said that "Using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate uses is not allowed, as using them for illegitimate uses is called sockpuppetry." I will accept what CLSStudent said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Unblock and unban all my accounts" is a nonstarter. They need to pick one. And who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"We" means all the five blocked accounts. They are The3Kittens, TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1, TSMWCFan2 and TSMWCfanboy3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: This request was made by a new account (TSMWCfanboy4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) who claims it is from UTRS but is not an administrator with access to UTRS. The username is similar to previous socks as well. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Majavah! It was made by The3Kittens, through UTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSMWCfanboy4 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@TSMWCfanboy4: How do you know, given that you're not an administrator and only administrators have access to UTRS? – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• OP blocked, as they have socked in unblock requests before. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 8 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.

@Majavah: Just FYI, an editor has access to their own UTRS appeal (though not to UTRS generally). They just can't see admin-only and checkuser comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I know. I was commenting on the sock that claimed that they aren't a sock and are just copying an appeal from UTRS. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, it was just in case you didn't :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, if I were going to sock, I would try to stay under the radar and wouldn't draw attention to my other blocked accounts in a bizarre unblock request - but perhaps I'm just being too clever for my own good.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for temporary topic ban suspension

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 ask that I be excluded from the topic ban invoked at [31] for the duration that I may at my own discretion discuss agricultural chemicals at [32] et seq. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT, I clicked at the two links and looked at the enforcement log and I don't feel that I have anywhere close to the background information necessary to understand what's going on here let alone have an opinion about whether the ban should be partially or completely repealed. Could you provide more background for those who might be like me and not know what's going on? Courtesy ping to Stephen who reverted you in the diff above and Seraphimblade as the sysop who logged the sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I've been scolded for expressing opinions about economics for many years. This is another in the same series of requests which purport that my behavior was substandard. I happen to not agree. EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't "been scolded" for expressing opinions, you have been categorically indefinitely topic banned by the community from economics. Stephen 01:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RESTRICT#EllenCT, it's a bit stronger than "scolding". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. Sure enough. So this is not about the AE tban but a community cban (here's the ANI for anyone else interested). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive link without the strikethrough issues (or is that just me?): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

And actually, it might be about both? The ban invoked (after an apparent violation of it) in the first diff was from the ANI ban I linked above; the ban preventing her from the is the AE ban. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I could be confused, but isn't it the AE discussion that involves chemicals, rather than the ANI economics restriction? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Beat me to it... (also ping User:Barkeep49, bc I forgot to above) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given the presentation and recent history, I would oppose lifting of any restrictions, temporary or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not grant "temporary suspensions" on sanctions, and certainly not "at [the user's] discretion". The topic of that thread is explosive chemicals, not economics, and the user is perfectly capable of discussion there that does not mention or allude to economics, broadly construed. And if they don't wish to discuss the explosive chemicals without mentioning or alluding to economics, they can avoid the thread entirely. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a separate AE ban, she linked the wrong one, which would prevent her from participating. Not that this changes anything you said, but there is a link to the AE ban above as well, so there is in fact a different ban stopping her that isn't economics related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Very well; she is certainly capable of discussing the explosive chemicals without also "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to" them. If she does not wish to discuss the chemicals within those restrictions, she can avoid the thread entirely. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

      @Softlavender: By my reading of Special:Diff/731962235, she's prohibited from

      1) "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors"
      "as well as"
      2) "the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Does not alter my points, and if you read the entire AE, it's clear the motivations/aspersions part was always about those topics. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Or is your issue the fact that I simply copypasted rather than interpolating the word "or" instead of "as well as"? I thought about doing that, but I figured that any reasonable person would know that the quoted sanction applies to either of those items, not just both at once. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since we're !voting now: I don't know the amount of time that should pass between an editor's violation of sanctions and loosening sanctions on that editor. I think that it should be longer than six hours. Oppose. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor is, among other things, topic banned from "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed", and nothing in her editing behavior, which I consider tendentious, leads me to conclude that the restriction should be eased. The Beirut explosion was caused by an agricultural chemical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, where do you find such a restriction? If there is one, it should definitely be listed on the appropriate sanctions page. Given this trainwreck of an AN filing, and the lack of full or neutral disclosure, and given recent behavior noted by others, this editor is skating close to further sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, the restriction can be found in the AE archives at 17:28, 28 July 2016 when Seraphimblade closed a thread called "David Tornheim", saying "EllenCT is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." David Tornheim was also sanctioned and Jusdafax was warned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Hi again Cullen328, that restriction is not "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed", it is rather "the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to" such. Seraphimblade can confirm if need be. And the restriction needs to be logged in the appropriate sanctions log. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Softlavender, at Talk: 2020 Beirut explosions, which I suggest that you read, she is doing far more than discussing the chemical in the abstract. She is speculating about the legal reasoning of the port authorities about the storage of the chemicals and speculating that the chemicals in question should instead have been used to alleviate famine in Syria. To me, that is a violation of her restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just a query, isn't the Jimbo talk page generally seen as a TBAN free zone? That is how it was always and we shouldn't "arbitrarily" enforce it. If someone is posting just on that one page which doesn't impact the encyclopedia, then I don't get the harm in any event but we should clarify the rules for the talk page because most people are under the assumption that the talk page is where TBAN folks can go without fear of getting sanctioned, at least that is how it has been in the past. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've never ever heard or seen that, and to allow TBANned editors to spout off about their banned topics on Jimbo's talkpage sounds nonsensical and destructive. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, I've seen it mentioned a few times, and once actually in my case way back in 2016 I believe by an admin, where it was said that at Jimbo's page we give much more latitude on what is allowed. Personally, I wouldn't call his page part of the encyclopedia in a way, it's not an article or a talk page so I also don't see much harm. Granted there are people who hang out there as their only editing here, but I don't know if it's really part of the encyclopedia. I don't have a comment on this request, I just saw it and remembered that we have a general "amnesty" if you will on his talk page and wanted it clarified. And as you commented, it's clear that some people think otherwise, so we should clarify if his page is off-limits or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • "Much more latitude" does not mean suspension of bans. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it comes under the heading of "appeal to Jumbo". Is this a rerun? I have deja vu? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

      Deepfriedokra, no, I'm not talking about an appeal, which would obviously be acceptable. I'm referring to talking about things that are in reference to a tban topic. Also, I have no idea what you mean by your rerun/deja vu comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

      • I think a couple of years ago there was an issue with someone making multi appeals including on Mr Wales talk page. But if instead of making an appeal, if this is the "nothere" posting that has become onerous, that's a different matter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, Jimbo's talk page has never been an exception to topic bans (or IBANS for that matter), which pertain everywhere on English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • She has also violated her TBAN on Newyorkbrad's talkpage (in addition to Jimbo's talkpage): [33]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • And now a third violation: [34]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose User needs to show the ability to edit constructively and without incivil conflict in other areas before removal of a TBAN (or IBAN) ca be contemplated. I think 6 months is generally the minimum. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Since I was asked, the AE topic ban that I imposed was indeed a prohibition from "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." The primary concern at the AE request was EllenCT's propensity to characterize disagreement with her as "astroturfing", without any evidence of such aside from the fact that someone had taken a contrary position. The topic ban is not from discussing the subject at all outside of that, though if further disruption is occurring it certainly can be broadened to a full topic ban from the area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, and since it seems to have come up—yes, both AE topic bans and community topic bans apply on Jimbo's talk page. The only exception is if the editor is actually appealing the sanction to Jimbo, as he does at least in theory retain the authority to overturn them, but Jimbo's talk page is not a free-for-all area for otherwise restricted editors to discuss things a topic ban otherwise prohibits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional violation?

In the diff EllenCT linked to above (Special:Diff/972070554), her edit replying to Newyorkbrad was reverted as a TBAN violation at 00:43 UTC. At 01:01 UTC, she filed this request linking to it (so she was definitely aware of the reversion). As noted by Softlavender above, she violated her restriction again at 01:48 UTC, posting essentially the same content. Should any action (other than the declination of her request) be taken? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think not. A TBAN can be a shock to the system. Just firmly reaffirming the TBAN conditions should do it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• And now a third violation: [35]. I think a block is in order until she gets it into her head that TBANs remain in effect till successfully appealed at ANI or AN. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Softlavender and Cullen328: I saw your discussion above and was looking into what was going on. Regardless of how you interpret the AE topic ban I feel this discussion is an unambiguous violation as she quotes an interview discussion the actions of an individual (who is a businessman) involving an agricultural chemical. Given that and the ongoing disruption in the other topic ban, I’ve blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur, TonyBallioni. She also describes it as an economic issue in that thread and in an edit summary. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Tony. This is why sanctions need to be logged in a centralized place. Otherwise, only persons who noticed that AE conversation are aware of them. Seraphimblade, could you please log the sanctions you enacted in the appropriate centralized location? Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • They’re logged at WP:AELOG/2016, which is how I found them. The part I think she’s violating is the ban from discussing the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Editing restrictions need to be logged at WP:Editing restrictions. We shouldn't need to check two or more locations, or logs from 4 years ago, to see if an editor is under any editing restrictions and what they are. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
        • AE actions are required to be logged at the AELOG for the year per WP:AC/DS. If you want to search the entire AELOG, you can go to WP:AELOG and ctrl+f the name. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Why are actual editing restrictions not also logged at WP:Editing restrictions? Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
            • As Tony said, it is already logged at the appropriate location. That is per ArbCom policy on discretionary sanctions. If you think they ought to be logged elsewhere, you can bring that up with ArbCom, but they'd have to be the ones to make any changes to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 10 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.

EllenCT is still disrupting the community, now on her usertalk page

I'd like to draw the community's attention to this endless arguing: User talk:EllenCT#August 2020. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, so don't go there. Granted, I was once blocked by an admin for telling someone on my talkpage that I don't want to discuss things further and I accept the block so please go away, and apparently that was considered disruptive. But in general, we give lots of latitude to blocked users to discuss or even vent on their talk page and it's not really a disruption to the project because if nobody reads their talk page the only person who it impacts is the talk page reader. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia to revoke or further sanction someone for posting on a talk page. Just simply stop going there if the ramblings are too much. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is nonsense. It looks like Ellen is just trying to understand how to avoid getting into trouble in the future and she's getting some helpful advice. That's hardly a matter for AN. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Move: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinkplil to the previous label

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.

---

"BLM" open activist user "Missvain" (Missvain) is making his cheat moves for merely revenge and political biased actions. --Sinkplil (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

She has now moved it to the master. This can be closed, unless action is required regarding the aspersions in this filing. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• UPDATE: This editor's edits need to be looked at independently of the SPI. Please comb through the edits, many of which are either garbled, disruptive, or non-constructive. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Sinkplil for a week for harassing Missvain, and will indef this editor in a New York minute if any harassment or disruption resumes when the block expires. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 11 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.

Clarifying general sanctions wording

I've been discussing the COVID19 general sanctions with ProcrastinatingReader on my talk page, and we noticed that the two most recent regimes, WP:GS/COVID19 and WP:GS/MJ, do not follow the typical general sanctions requirements. Under WP:AC/DS and WP:GS, users must be made "aware" using {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned, but COVID and Michael Jackson sanctions only require an editor be "warned" without mentioning specifics. In two other recent regimes WP:GS/Wrestling says editors "should" be alerted with {{Gs/alert}}, but IRANPOL qualifies this as a "must". This inconsistency is a problem because the COVID19 GS discussion proposed sanctions that are similar in form to other community-authorized general sanctions, so it's not clear what was authorized given that the most recent sanctions differ on whether awareness is an explicit requirement. To clarify those past sanctions and to clarify decisions going forward, when authorizing general sanctions, is the default that an editor should or must (in terms of RFC 2119 definitions) have been alerted with {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, Wugapodes. For others, as reference, our discussion on talk: COVID Editnotice, which stemmed into whether an editnotice alone meets the awareness requirements, and I suppose whether alerts are required at all. For DS, it would not per this motion, but arb discussion there also notes that the motion isn't binding on GS: the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions [...] If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes.

More broadly, we may as well clear up GS' "standard discretionary sanctions" in relation to DS while we're here. In my view, the WP:GS subpages (or the main page, for that matter) are not particularly great, have (or had) various inconsistencies and, along with the old set of templates, are somewhat arbitrary, so I kinda ignore them for the most part. Instead, referring directly to the previous WP:AN discussions that authorised said sanctions, wording along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised" was used (or "standard community-authorised general sanctions", which has effectively the same meaning). My weak understanding is that, more recently, this generally refers to authorising sanctions akin to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, but it appears no discussion has explicitly decided if all of ArbCom's rules surrounding DS also apply (including WP:AWARE). And, if yes, should all future amendments ArbCom makes to the rules/procedures surrounding their DS sanctions also automatically apply to existing community sanctions, unless the community expressly approves a diversion from those requirements for a particular sanction? As it stands currently, it appears multiple admins, quite reasonably, have different interpretations in this somewhat hazy area. It appears there's no requirement for GS to formally be aligned with DS, and multiple sanction pages use should rather than must for alerting; the system does seem to keep falling out of sync with DS (at least in terms of templates), and I suppose an argument can be had whether ArbCom's relatively extensive requirements are a good thing to adopt for GS as well, or too strict and will allow more issues to slip through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I've suggested before that GS and DS should be merged - ArbCom should create a mechanism by which the community can impose discretionary sanctions which can be enforced at WP:AE etc. Having two similar sanction regimes that differ in subtle ways is very confusing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be a fan, but that also gives the community much less ability to change anything relating to the sanctions they've imposed. Just one example would be that we'd be probably unable to change the templates too much (DS' aren't so great either) without the consent of ArbCom. One example of an issue: just a few days ago El C and I caught Special:Diff/970494685, which has been standing for years after a motion confirmed this isn't correct. One other example: "restrictions" on templates that use the term seems to constantly cause confusion: the term does not include DS itself. Perhaps there will be a desire to have lower awareness requirements for a particular sanction (now or in the future), which isn't really possible if aligned with AC/DS. At least with a separate system the community can adjust them, or anything else, as it wishes. On a similar note, "GS and DS" feels like a misnomer - isn't DS technically a type of GS, and the sanctions the community imposes are also usually discretionary sanctions ("DS"), with really the main difference being they're community-authorised rather than ArbCom-authorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also the other way round: the community could control the DS/GS policy and ArbCom could add conditions as necessary for its cases. Currently DS is an internal procedure, so it doesn't need ratified, just a majority committee vote without any direct community assent. We could amend the arbitration policy so that procedural changes to discretionary sanctions must be ratified by the community, which would make it easier to keep the two in sync since changes to both DS and GS would now need to go through the community hopefully preventing conflicts since the same group would review and amend both. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I feel I should specifically note that one feature I like about GS is that it doesn't run through AE. Appeals are purely at AN and it doesn't have the bonkers "sanctioning admin must have committed a felony to be overturned" level of appeal difficulty. I don't mind updating our wording to match, but I don't want to see it formally linked and i definitely don't want us grabbing their enforcement mechanisms. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not following your train of thought. AE is optional for WP:ACDS appeals. But it is, in fact, more often than not a superior forum, I would argue, where a quorum of uninvolved admins decide a case in a structured rather than threaded discussion — for appeals: often on the pros of the sanctioned editor rather than necessarily on the cons of the sanctioning admin. That is why I almost always recommend AE over AN/ANI, for both those seeking to impose sanctions as well as those seeking to lift them. El_C 13:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• As its closer, I am surprised that the MJ GS doesn't have the normal awareness criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  As the one who proposed it, I'm quite sure it was taken from another GS (not sure which, hmm...) and I did so with the implication that that "standard discretionary sanctions" meant we were going for the structure of AC/DS (which requires awareness). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• A very simple change that I would suggest is to change the "warnings" terminology to "alerts". Is that alright with everyone involved? -qedk (t 愛 c) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that would help clarify things, but we should also resolve the "should" vs "must" difference between WP:GS/Wrestling and WP:GS/IRANPOL. Presumably we'd change the wrestling sanctions to "must". — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree to this solution. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording at WP:GS subpages has consensus at all, at a glance. See eg Special:Permalink/654489355, Special:Diff/654489841, vs proposal, the earliest diffs of this wording I can find, at a glance. The 2nd diff contradicts the proposal, even. I'm assuming this was an attempt to make the pages more helpful, not to prescribe the requirements.

Best temporary solution here imo is to update all standard WP:GS subpages to the remedy wording of WP:GS/CASTE, which links to WP:AC/DS. A new subheading and a 1 line proposal for this may be most likely to get the community support required, since I suppose the above isn't generating much interest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins needed for Arbitration Enforcement

Arbitration Enforcement is in need of additional administrators to review and respond to complaints. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Slate Star Codex

There has already been multiple admin interventions on this entry to block name mentioning. Under whatever disguises and trickery.

Now it is being done again, with yet a new trickery method.

[[36]]

Please someone step in, remove those histories, and warn the infraction lovers...

Thanks a lot. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the past history of the problem? This looks like nitpicking over the formatting of a name from my view of the link you provided. Are there prior AN or ANI reports on this issue so we can review the history of which you speak? --Jayron32 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, it was a contentious dispute over whether the real name of the blog's author should be mentioned in the article; see Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#Last_name, also this diff. Previous talk page entries that mention the full name have been revdel'd in the Talk and article history, Barkeep49, GeneralNotability, and King of Hearts have all recently performed revdel on the Talk page and Enterprisey on the article page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. Perhaps one of them should continue to provide administrative support in this, since they've been dealing with it all along, and it's the sort of nuanced thing that most admins aren't going to be familiar with... I'll defer to them. --Jayron32 18:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The name behind has not been a secret per se but neither has it been published on a site of Wikipedia's (or New York Times) scale. And there is a clear request from author not to do it which means a lot, absent other forms of consensus, according to WP:BLP. There are a lot of nuances to this issue, as David Gerard rightly points out on the talk page. I had taken this article off my watchlist as I was no longer following developments and did not think I could do a fair job of knowing when the tools would be in line with BLP or out of line with other core policies. So beyond adding a BLP DS notice to talk page, I am declining to exercise my administrative discretion and powers with that article at this moment. I think this might be best addressed at BLPN given the intertwining of behavior and content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is very contentious, and the claim here is how to list a reference to a relevant RS. I suggest reading the talk page. And keeping in mind that it's an off-wiki cause celebre, with the subject of the article making arguably factually incorrect claims about his own actions - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion opened at WP:BLPN#Slate Star Codex. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

{{DISPLAYTITLE}} template

I have tried changing the title of my user page using this tag like {{DISPLAYTITLE:Abdullah AL Shohag}} several times. But never worked. I think its maybe unauthorized. If so, please make me. Right now I have this template in my user page. Thanks. A. Shohag 07:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that DISPLAYTITLE can only be used to make a few specific changes, and it's not able to change what letters are shown: "if the displayed title is copied and pasted into a wikilink, the link should point to the original page" (WP:DISPLAYTITLE). For future reference, probably WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk are better pages to ask questions to do with editing help. I hope this helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 08:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked this - I'm pretty sure it won't work on a user page because the element you're trying to change isn't called title, it's called something else, therefore it won't accept the request to change the "title". W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 11:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE can't be used to display a different title - it can only make stylistic alterations to the existing title such as changing the font and/or the color. This is true on any page, including mainspace.— Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@ShohagS: You can only use DISPLAYTITLE to change the formatting of a title, not the actual name of the page. You can't remove the "User:" prefix from a user page, and if you want your user page to be called "User:Abdullah AL Shohag" instead of "User:ShohagS", then you'd have to change your username. Also, in the future, issues like this one would be better raised at WP:VPT. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn, Diannaa, Wekeepwhatwekill, and Goldenshimmer: Thanks you all. But take a look at my user page in bnwiki which perfectly does the work I want. If {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't do that work, then why isnot there something else? A. Shohag 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ShohagS: Because $wgRestrictDisplayTitle is false on bnwiki, as you can see in operations/mediawiki-config, but it's true here. When that's false, it lets DISPLAYTITLE change it to whatever you want, instead of just to the same text with different formatting. It could in theory be changed to false here if there were consensus to do so, but there almost certainly is not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's more information at mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle. The convention on this wiki is that the page title and page name must match.— Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa and Jackmcbarn: what if someone sets the value of $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to false customizing a different module? Will that be acceptable? A. Shohag 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ShohagS: What does "customizing a different module" mean? That's a sitewide setting. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You might be better off asking this at WP:VPT; that's where the coders hang out.— Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

But if there is community consensus that displaytitle should not be used to change the actual words of a page title (including on user pages), then trying to find a technical way around this consensus is not acceptable either, even if it is possible. Simply accepting that no, your user page title is your user name and moving on to more productive areas is the solution, not customizing some module. Fram (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Change to CheckUser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) have been restored.

Katie^talk 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to CheckUser team

Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hipocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Gaza Sky Geeks

For the background, see the discussion here. This page was deleted by user Deb yesterday. Then, after I asked, the article was restored to a version from 2018 and immediately (automatically?) sent to "Articles for Creation" where the nomination was denied. Now it exists as a draft here: Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks Problem is that I and other editors had worked on the article significantly since 2018 and all those revisions are lost. I believe my last edits to it was in July this year and it was in a much better shape than this draft. So can some administrator kindly restore the latest version of the page somehow? ImTheIP (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I merged the histories if only to stop the parallel history problem from getting worse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wug· - As the deleting admin, I should have been informed about this before the later, more promotional versions were restored. Now the draft is back to what it was like when it was deleted as G11. Deb (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted shortcut

Someone has taken it upon themselves to recreate an already deleted shortcut, literally one week after it was deleted. I suspect someone wants to bludgeon the process. I request this request be closed down as being done too soon (yes I know consensus can change, but in one week? ) and that this redirect be protected from being re-created for the time being. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 11:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August_4#Cup Foods (closed). Let's let the RfD run its course. Salvio 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Infinite IP blocks?

I notice that we have some infinite IP blocks, some dating back to 2006, infinite IP blocks. I would hope that we would not need to set blocks for longer than five years. I think that we should remove any infinite IP block that is older than five years, and convert any IP block to a timed block if it is less than five years. It is of zero issue to reblock any IP address that re-abuses for another five years. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's consensus that indefinite IP blocks are generally inappropriate, serve no meaningful purpose to the project, and should be lifted, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks. tl;dr for the non-technically inclined: IPs can and do change, so the same person that was vandalizing Wikipedia 5+ years ago certainly isn't at that same IP anymore. Also, things have changed in the past few years; we now have not one, but two bots identifying and blocking open proxies. -FASTILY 03:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also a list which includes IP ownership information at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips. It used to be worse, a few different people have gone through some of the oldest ones and cleaned them up. Though, I'm not sure why we're accumulating so many new indef blocks on individual IPv6 addresses... ST47 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably misclicks. Twinkle defaults to indef blocks for certain rationales ("spam only", "vandalism only", etc). Twinkle (and other semi-automated tools) probably shouldn't allow people to indefinitely block IP addresses. I hate confirmation prompts, but MediaWiki should probably ask for confirmation, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't ever default to indef for an IP; if that's the case, it's a bug. I agree that it should just prevent it from being manually selected, though; that's an easy change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I usually check that list once a year, and leave a message on this thread reminding all admins to go through that list and search for indefinite IP blocks by their username. Many times, an admin will do this accidentally using Twinkle or another semi-automated tool and where they accidentally left the duration set to "indefinite". If they shouldn't be there, they should be reduced to a definite duration. If they should be there, the block reason should have an explanation as to why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I generally don't overly pay attention to long term blocks here, more focusing elsewhere. I know that at meta and enWS that we are down to none, though note that the circumstances are different. I also know that when I was doing stewardry we stopped doing infinite blocks on IPs and the consequences at places has not been catastrophic. IMNSHO it should only be stepwise to infinite IP blocks, not the prime initial response. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason we should not now remove all indefinitely IP blocks imposed more than three years ago, and to convert all indefinitely IP blocks imposed less than three years ago into three-year blocks?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That makes complete sense to me, I don't see why an IP should have an indef at this point. Edit: Looking at the list, I do have a caveat, some of these are blocked proxies, which I would think need to remain in place. A few look to be LTA socks that were ranged blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion last year that unblocked all indef'd IPs from before 2009, handled by a bot. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any data on how many of those IPs are now re-blocked? Or have contributed? Perhaps we can release another tranche of the old infinite blocks. –xeno^talk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I went through 2 or 3 thousand in the block log and didn't see any marked by the mark blocked gadget. 2009 was chosen as it was essentially the toggle point; there were maybe a couple hundred total from 2009 and later, compared to ~20,000 before 2009. Per Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs there were 126, roughly a fifth of which were from the last year. Many of those have been undone​. That is, the scale is entirely different, I'm not sure there's a "tranche" left to go through! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis! Looks like a case-by-case thing then. –xeno^talk 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• A number (indeed, the majority) of those are proxies, TOR, webhosts, self-requested blocks via OTRS, and more importantly Oversight blocks. Why would you want to be removing them? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  I thought it is quite uncommon for IPs to stay at the same location for years. If I remember correctly, open proxies very rarely live longer than 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Only 2 are oversight blocks - I agree they should not be modified except by oversight team.

  169.241.10.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by request of school district administration in 2006. I modified it in 2009 and wrote 'softblock' in the log summary but set it a hard block - I'm not sure which I meant to do or is appropriate now, 11 years later. Anyone can modify that one as they see fit. –xeno^talk 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I am not saying that there are not legitimate blocks among that lot, I am saying that there will be illegitimate blocks in that range. To me that is contrary to our blocking policy. I also know that internet-wise that since those blocks have been in place much has changed in a global WMF system, tools, bots, etc., even IPv6. With eyes wide open we should be removing the many blocks with review as required, and where there is problem we will be (re-)imposing blocks. I just would just prefer long-term blocks to have an expiry date, not be set and forget. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User Nishidani

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.

---

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dear administrators. I am new here. I don't know how you guys work on fighting hate, haters. On viewing the khazar page, I saw an edit by user Nishidani trying to normalize its myth used by anti-Semites (including the one inspiring others including some who have apologized. In understanding why he would do that I saw in his last edit writing much on the Human Shields page... in his edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/972379035 he wrote on his revision: "as part of its win the minds and hearts of goys"... - His words. This talk about Jews vs goys is clearly nazi style. Making the world as if it is Jew vs non Jew, supposedly. This gives (twisted) understanding to his edit on Khazar Page too. In asking about it he hinted an intimidation something about previous efforts which I have no idea. Thus the issue: a user that has openly showed his feelings towards ALL JEWS, plus trying to silence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazars#Nishidani_anti_Jewish_trend ) a new user in criticising him. Thanks. Regards. Peace. Adrienis (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nishdani's edit summary mentioning "goys" is worrying, but might be explained as his view of the IDF materials and not his personal point of view (even though that remains worrying, but a little less). The issue at Talk:Khazars#Nishidani_anti_Jewish_trend is a content issue, and can IMHO be resolved fairly easily. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought the plural of goy {גוֹי ) was goyim" (גויים). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the plural word...I also know the wording neo Nazis use it... which is why it just shocked me to see such a usage/user with such obvious hate would be allowed on wikipedia. I refer to his views on world vs Jews... not about idf, which I haven't addressed. Though it shows his motivation and point of view on anything related to ANY JEWS. The middle east is not the subject of this discussion. But neo Nazi trend is. By now? The issue is overall hatred not even kahzar nor middleast.Adrienis (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute? Pointing out faultiness of source of reverted content? There was a prior thread. Needs looking at. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Should I revert his edit at kahzar (myth, amazingly still pushed even after DNA proof against it) page which he reverted again trying to rationalize it...? It is not about content dispute. But hatred and its motivation in editing vs honesty and sincerity. Plus. Isn't there any guideline on wikipedia against a campaigner clearly using content and (editing/removing/adding etc.) as an attack on entire race, creed, etc.?Adrienis (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Adrienis, you forgot to notify the user. That step is not optional. I have done this for you. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the section heading above to remove the word 'hatred'. User:Adrienis should be aware of our policy on WP:TALKHEADPOV, "Never use headings to attack other users". EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla. I tried to, but his talk page is "protected". It seems.Adrienis (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'm still learning.Adrienis (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Yamla. Nashidi saw my message on kahzar talk page. Though I didn't revert his latest edit. Adrienis (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To deeofrieddorka. Here is an example of this preferred (mistaken) usage by fascists : From ADL: which they refer to using derogatory terms such as soy goys But the problem is of course the entire view of the non-Hews vs All Jews trend/campaign.Adrienis (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC) If I haven't mentioned it. Asides from motivation in editing and being on an attack, apparently using wikipedia as part of an overall goal. The issue is also about of promoting a HATRED ideology on wiki.Adrienis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strikes me as a somewhat ridiculous overreaction. Personally I always though goy simply meant "non-Jew", full stop. I'd use it like pākehā in the appropriate circumstances. Slow down a bit on the wild accusations? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• elmidae, Please see it again for what it really is. Not just about "using" the word at all. But: 1. Twisted ideology of usage to portray the world as "world of ALL non-Jews vs Jews". 2. The specific use 'goys' with the S at the end. Only used by fascists. Though not the only use by them.Adrienis (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay this odd confluence of two newbie editors who should not be touching I/P articles threatening me here and on my talk page, now find their attitude supported by an established editor whose edit summary indicates he did not read what I wrote (Norman Finkelstein's book demolished the hasbara theory of Hamas and human shields accusations, and that is RS - rendering all contemporary newspaper coverage void of meaning). I guess I'll have to delay cooking and waste a half an hour pulling these lunatic accusations apart. Iwas told in November last year by Safety and Trust to expect provocations this year, as a coordinated attempt to rid Wikipedia of people like myself for being, yeah 'anti-Israel'. So I guess I'll have to delay cooking and waste a half an hour pulling these lunatic accusations apart. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• In other words. What Nishidani stated in the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/972379035 is that we all Non-Jews of the world won't get fooled... Middle east politics is not the issue here (which is why I haven't touched the subject) one shouldn't mask it' under so called "politics". But that twisted ideology is the issue. Which explains his push for khazar myth among other things.Adrienis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Background: When I made that edit, I was mostly engaged in reading Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s 'Pauline Traditions and the Rabbis: Three Case Studies,' Harvard Theological Review 110 (2017): 169–194. So I eliminated it with the edit summary:

(All of that propaganda was dismantled by several studies since the end of the war, and was definitively buried by Norman Finkelstein's 2018 analysis of the Israeli lies. Contemporary newspapers only represent news feeds from the IDF as part of its win the minds and hearts of goys, and has no place here

The allusion in the edit summary is to Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom. University of California Press, 2018 978-0-520-29571-1 pp.69ff., who cites evidence showing that the massive amount of foreign IDF echo-reportage about Hamas’s putative use of human shields was dismantled by post-war research, by organizations like Amnesty International. It was pure foreign-directed hasbara (which one of these editors, and now Shrike, wants to put back in.

Goy?

Why did I write goy there? Because I paused from reading the article by Ishay Rosen-Zvi to glance at wikipedia and saw a ridiculous edit on Hamas and human shields.

Ishay Rosen-Zvi, together with Adi Ophir, wrote a few years back a very important book, Goy: Israel's Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile, Oxford University Press, 2018 978-0-191-06234-6. Since reading books is something rarely done these days, I guess the best summary will have to be from a Haaretz review:

In Israel, too, identification with the nation-state overcomes the traditional taboo against exogamy. This is done not in concurrence with the liberal ethos, but by basing Jewish identity on nationalism and on the national struggle. Here we can see that when non-Jews, according to halakha (immigrants under the Law of Return), participate in the struggle against non-Jews according to halakha and to nationality (Muslim Arabs), they are accepted into the community of the Israeli nation, and hence are considered Jews for the purposes of friendship, communal life and marriage. Indeed, when the fact that halakha prohibits their burial next to people who are considered Jews by the Rabbinate is (re)discovered by the media, public outrage ensues. Partnership in the Israeli national project is enough to turn them into non-goyim. Tomer Persico,'How the Jews Invented the Goy,' Haaretz 9 November 2019.

I grew up reading all major writers I could lay my hands on, which meant also the likes of Philip Roth and Isaac Bashevis Singer, where, following standard usage in Yiddish, it is a normal infra-Ashkenazi term for non-Jews. Any student of Israeli politics will immediately recall the verbal bunfights between a self-confident Ben-Gurion, whose line was to ignore what goyim thought, and the Foreign Minister of the day Moshe Sharett, with his ‘deeply rooted Jewish distrust of goyim’, always getting the MFA to fuss over how Israel’s case was to be presented to foreigners.Denying that the term is extremely widespread in Jewish and Israeli-Hebrew usage is disingenuous, or smacks of unfamiliarity.

Singer in an interview once made a thought experiment imagining

what it would be like “ if we would have , now , here , a goy who would write in Yiddish ... we would say , “ What are you doing writing in Yiddish , why don ' t you go back to the goyim , we don ' t need you.’ Paul Kresh, Isaac Bashevis Singer, the Magician of West 86th Street: A Biography, Dial Press, 1979 p.349

My formal studies once showed how an immense amount of conversation in countries whose languages are not thought to be easy for outsiders (Japan/China) use terms which, in translation or officialize, are systematically elided, erased. The same thing is going on in this disgruntlement at the use of ‘goy(im)’: it is put over that only antisemitic Nazis use it, when it is a term thoroughly domesticated in Jewish usage (and I can see no harm in that). Every day every orthodox Jew will thank god for not being a goy (she-lo asani goy). That is none of my business, and is perfectly legitimated by tradition. The harm arises in pretending that is not the case.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 12 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.

TheDonald.win

• TheDonald.win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just increased protection for this from sprot to full protection for the duration of the ongoing AfD due to revert warring by WP:SPAs apparently driven by the forum itself. I'm mentioning it here for two reasons: first, the meatfest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win, and second, I removed some unsourced material yesterday - I have no edits prior to reviewing it yesterday following a noticeboard thread but if anyone thinks that my protection should be undone or changed per WP:INVOLVED, please feel free. Maybe ECP or PC would be better? I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) JzG, ECP would be better here IMO. A quick MAT scan shows a majority of disruptive editors on this article are not extended confirmed. An indef semi may be warranted (alike to r/The_Donald) given the nature of the article. Ed talk! 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here are some threads I've found re this article: [37] [38]. It looks like the article was actually created by article community members, however, I cannot comment on who per WP:OUTING. Ed talk! 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, makes sense, done. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I closed the AfD, since it was about 12 hours past the normal run time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Very good close. I had looked at it, although I wasn't looking to close it myself, and came to the exact same conclusion you did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bunch of files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

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.

---

Jonteemil added about 138 files to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming with double extensions. (and a few that are named like "Company SVG logo.svg")

Unlike Commons, Wikipedia:File names doesn't list double extensions as a reason for renaming. It would probably not be very controversial, but.. it's not in the guideline and I don't know how long adding it may take. In the meantime, the category is very difficult to navigate.

From the admins I ask one the following:

• A rough indication of how long it'll take to change the guideline, and this being a period of less than a week OR
• Support from several admins to carry out the about 138 rename requests for files with double extensions, including/excluding the "Company SVG logo.svg" cases (this will take a while) OR
• Support from several admins to decline them all pending a guideline change. (this could be done quickly with little effort) I have already backed up the move links at User:Alexis Jazz/Double extension links so the moves could be done after the guideline has changed.

I rather wouldn't be stuck with a maintenance category that's difficult to navigate. I also don't want to lose my file mover rights, which is why I'm asking admins. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw, as the list is easier to work from, I'd remove the rename template exactly the same way from those 138 files, whether they get moved or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I think this situation is covered by WP:FNC#5. Double extensions are obvious errors that cause confusion as to the actual format of the file, so I'd be surprised if there was much controversy in renaming them. The "Company SVG logo.svg" naming style is context dependant. If there's no information in the title, it's probably okay to move per WP:FNC#2, but if it has the company name and states that it's a logo, there's enough information that it probably should not be moved per WP:FMNN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: If it's covered by WP:FNC#5 that would be fine. (I will await some more comments to confirm if that's the generally held opinion)) They don't necessarily cause confusion over the actual format though, for example File:Back from the Grave, Volume 4 (LP).JPEG.jpg. SVG logo examples: File:FeldaUnitedSVGlogo.svg, File:Free Geek Logo SVG.svg and File:Health Care Property Investors SVG Logo.svg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's not so obvious then. I think the ".JPEG.jpg" may be worth renaming especially if they're recent uploads, but a scan of the category suggests none of the files look badly named enough to require immediate renames. I don't know much about the file namespace, so I'll bow out here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 10 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.

Disruptive user U1Quattro

User:U1Quattro has a long long history of conflicts here at WP. Recently they nominated some articles for deletion which no one noticed until after an article was turned into a redirect. Me and another editor, User:Davey2010 proceeded to add sources to the articles in question (Isuzu Forward and Isuzu Giga). U1Quattro, however, decided that this was unacceptable and began relisting, tag bombing, and generally showing that they are not able to function here. Basic things like calling other users "idiots" are troubling, but I am more worried about the users refusal to engage in discussion. When reverted, they always double down. After some prodding, U1Quattro will sometimes post on a talkpage, but never without first re-reverting. CF TVR Cerbera, Maserati Granturismo.

The user has several IBANs with a number of other users already, but understands the rules here at Wikipedia well enough to usually stop shy of anything getting a more severe reprisal. The user loves starting ANIs at the drop of a hat. Most recently this one, which led to more IBAN activity. On their user page they state the following:

You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key.

Not a good attitude to a collaborative project IMHO. Personally I do try to steer clear of this user because it is very stressful to interact with them, but this year U1Quattro has begun editing articles on old Japanese commercial vehicles which is an area of interest of mine.

The user is a self-proclaimed deletionist but often deletes things indiscriminately. Sometimes they introduce errors through haste or carelessness. As an example, here is one set of troubling edits laid out as I attempted to get U1Quattro to own their errors and apologize for sloppy editing (introducing factual error: changing the meaning of a sentence not because they disagreed with it or because it was disputed but just through sloppiness). As usual, they responded aggressively and will not own their mistakes. At TVR Cerbera U1Quattro changed the classification of the car, a question which does not have a clear answer. There are tons of sources that support A, B, or both A and B in this question, and so it is deserving of a discussion. I reverted, citing WP:BRD, but naturally U1Quattro re- and then re-reverted.

Anyhow, any user can change and I had sort of been expecting U1Quattro to mellow out over the years, but they are just as strident, combative, and generally unpleasant to deal with as they have always been. I am not sure if I ought to ping some of the many other users with which U1Quattro has had disagreements with in the past; please advise. This ANI post is, btw, done reluctantly and after long consideration as U1Quattro has thus far succeeded in pushing out a number of users with whom he has argued with, but it is becoming a bit tough to do good work as of late.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There are signs of just generally lazy editing, many of these AfD's boil down for me to "article quality bad, delete lol" and they very rarely produce many valid specific criteria for deletion. Incivility does appear to be a genuine concern here and, as noted, their behaviour hasn't changed much past being rather hostile and oftentimes defensive from what I can tell. Ed talk! 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, I don't have several IBANs as OP claims here. I only have one ongoing IBAN with a user. Second of all, Davey2010 has started this mess by the use of offensive language and causing disruption. Instances can be seen here, here, here and here so I'm not the only one to blame over here for behavourial outbursts. The articles were nominated for deletion per WP:GNG and they still cite a majority of manufacturer sources which is something against WP:RELIABILITY. Third of all, as far as TVR Cerbera goes, the OP claims that there are "several" sources that call that a sports car but so far I have seen none. I, however, added the sources which call it a grand tourer. Fourth, about my user page, that is my personal name space. I can write what I want there, I don't think there is a need to point that out. Fifth, about Hino Ranger, I had already notified this user that if they have corrected the errors then it is fine by me. I don't see any issues with that neither I see a need to apologise over a petty mistake. I'm not the only one to blame here simply put, there are others who have been at fault too including the OP.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Actually no, You started this mess by reverting the article back to a redirect even tho it was sourced ... Sure you might of disagreed with the sources used however your next option would've then been AFD again. You also started all of this by edit warring with various people.....

As for offensive language - Sure I'll give you the first one but other than that I've remained calm and patient throughout.

Something quite clearly needs to be done here with this user. –Davey2010^Talk 11:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• U1Quattro may well be a productive editor; I haven't seen any evidence of it but that's partly because the most eye-catching feature of this editor is the slew of fights they get in. I see now that I blocked them a while ago for violating an iBan. Here is one from this year, a Floquenbeam block, which U1Quattro tries to blame on the other party. What is noteworthy in all these is the "OH ITS NOT ME ITS THEM" attitude, which contrasts nicely with last month's "The admins have the right to tell you and they told you to stop. So stop and STFU." And that user page is just asinine, completely unbecoming of someone who wants to work in a collaborative effort. Yes, that one comment by Davey wasn't great, but that's not blockable--though Davey knows I don't always appreciate their language. But while I have no intimate knowledge of the amount of disruption caused by the edits that this discussion started with, they warrant investigation, as does the attitude. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• The user should be community-banned. What they write on their user page alone - "You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key" - indicates that they are not temperamentally suited to participating in a collaborative project. Their block record confirms that impression. Sandstein 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, I wonder if it's later in the day where you are, if the sun of human kindness has already sunk; for me the day is still fresh and young, the cup half-full and all that, but I know that's just my silly optimism. Thank you--you are right. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Where I am it's late in the afternoon on a hot summer's day and I'm sitting in a shady garden just having opened a can of cold beer (the first today; maybe not the last), but I still can't find enough kindness in me to say that Sandstein is wrong, especially given U1Quattro's outburst here, which shows a total lack of self-awareness. Who knows, maybe without this editor cars will drop off the list of topic areas, like professional wrestling and hurricanes, that seem to a non-fanatic to be uncontroversial but actually keep generating drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Cheers Phil. All the best to you. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Drmies the statement about the admins was said to a user who was disruptive as well as aggressive. I don't say that I'm not at fault in the disputes I get in. The other party is as equally responsible as me. Which is exactly what happened during that AN3 discussion as well as over Isuzu Giga which you have pointed out.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Considering Fram and Phil Bridger's comments above, U1Quattro, I have an idea, and I wish you'd had that idea too: why not start by scrapping, on your user page, everything between "As a human" and "not welcome"? Your career is dangling by a thread here, and surely we can't all be completely wrong and you the only one who's right. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • U1 - I'm not at all equally responsible for this no where near and to say I am is yet again taking the "Blaming others" approach, Sure I could've saved us the edit warring and done the RFC myself however given I'm not the one who had a problem with the image I sort of saw it as being pointless. Obviously you're aware of WP:BRD too. –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have never claimed that I'm always right. Neither here, nor anywhere else. I have pointed out that other parties are as responsible as me for starting the dispute Drmies. The sense of humour thing has nothing to do with collaborative effort as discussed by Phil and Sandstein. I have, however, made some changes to the user page.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A note: somehow or other this discussion drifted away without any sanction for U1Quattro at all. That was unfortunate. Given that they continually get in conflict with a rotating cast of other editors, I would like to suggest that a long enforced break would be beneficial to the project. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see that, JBL--it shouldn't have just disappeared. There was a clear consensus for an iBan, for starters. Let's hope that there's a couple admins around who will close this properly, no matter what the outcome. I'm thinking that a three-month block would be a good start. They made a few minor changes to their user page, so I'll forgo calling for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. Or a change in behavior, that would be just as nice. As it stands, U1Quattro is doubling down at TVR Cerbera and being allowed to continue exactly the sort of behavior that so many find problematic. The problem isn't so much what the user page states but that it perfectly expresses not only how U1Quattro feels about other editors but also how they edit. How many editors have to chime in before there is an administrative response? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Again the issue is being about the same page about which the OP claims is a sports car while they have failed to present any sources that state it is a sports car. They used the undo button when I was trying to add the source and still did not bother with adding the sources when they had started a talkpage discussion. I had added the sources which supported what I had said. This behaviour by the OP shows that they are just as responsible as me for the disruption at TVR Cerbera.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  they are just as responsible as me for the disruption is not an acceptable standard. If you are just as responsible as another user for disruption, both you and the other user risk sanctions. If you are repeatedly just as responsible for disruption as another user, especially multiple other users, you risk serious sanctions. The acceptable standard is: complying with WP:PAGs, regardless of what another user does. ^Lev_!v^ich 01:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  If the other user is responsible then they should also be sanctioned instead of me taking all the blame for the disruption caused. If we take TVR Cerbera as an example, the edit warring was started by OP and they deserve equal sanction for violating WP:3RR.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I was not engaging in an edit war, I followed the WP:BRD guidelines (and have continued not to violate 3RR even after U1Quattro refuses to restore the original content as they are supposed to do as per BRD). Bold, Revert, Discuss. It's not Bold, Revert, Re-revert. And TVR Cerbera is not the issue, this is just a part of a years long inability to be civil, to interact properly, and to be a good faith editor.

U1Quattro has mastered the art of the red herring, always doing their utmost to change the discussion to something that suits them better. I implore the admins to look at U1Quattro's talk page, history, user page, block log, etc etc. Something has to be done. Clearly U1Quattro is absolutely refusing to even consider modifying their behavior, continuing only to blame every single other editor who ever disagrees with them about anything, however minor a detail.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not mandated by wiki policy. Yet the OP continues to mention and has been trying to force me to follow it. Further, the OP has also violated WP:3RR which is infact mandated by policy. They have also refused to engage in a discussion at TVR Cerbera which highlights their inability to discuss things. I'm not saying I'm right but the OP has been wrong and has violated a policy for which they should also be sanctioned.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support CBAN per Sandstein. Based on the discussion here and at numerous prior ANI threads, it seems this user is completely unwilling to take any feedback on board. I have yet to see any acknowledgment of a problem, never mind a commitment to improving. I think any further discussion is hopeless. Lev!vich 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I had my fair share of scrap with U1Quattro, which is why I backed off of him so I wouldn't get tangled with how he talks to people. Threatening to take it to Arbitration or report me for "misconduct" and "damaging his credibility" as well as making the odd false accusation, but I won't go into too much details since it already been said and gone. However I made the choice to not clash with him because I knew, from how he speaks and edit would make any rational user on here to become fed up with his attitude. --Vauxford (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I saw Davey's most recent 3RR report against U1Quattro the other day (maybe it was yesterday?) but I was busy and didn't do much digging; I had chastised Davey in a similar report not too long ago about reporting editors for 3RR when they were also revert warring. I was going to indef block U1Quattro for the "idiot" comments in that dispute but, I don't know, I was busy or something. After reading this I'm leaning towards agreeing with Sandstein that U1Quattro should just be indeffed until they get it. What is it? It's the attitude that they can do no wrong, that they can pick and choose which community standards to follow, that others' transgressions forgive their own, that if they're sanctioned then someone else must also be sanctioned and if not then there is nothing to learn, that they have no obligation to take suggestions or advice from anyone. Basically what Levivich said, but worse because U1Quattro has had these things explained repeatedly and they continue to not improve, and there's only so much rope that admins can extend. @U1Quattro: if someone doesn't decide to block you as a result of this report, it's very likely that the next time your behaviour leads to a report on one of these conduct noticeboards, you will be, and for a long time. What will you do to avoid being reported again? Don't talk about other editors in your response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged above: I do not have time to review the newest situation in any detail, but I have observed U1Quattro's interactions with other editors for a while now, and believe that if U1Quattro can't stop feuding/fighting with so many people, they should be indef blocked. So, if the closing admin believe this can be construed as yet another case of feuding/fighting with yet another editor - no matter how minor it seems in isolation - then I support a CBAN; if not, then I have no opinion either way. That's probably of limited use, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Ivanvector I have done what the administration required me to do at my user page. As far as behavioural issues go, I would avoid getting across some editors present in this thread due to behavioural issues of their own. Other than that, I will do effort to change my behaviour with how I deal with editors here.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very unsatisfactory response. I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't sound convincing. I'm not under the impression that you have any clue what went wrong. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I will bow out simply because any response that I give which does not contain the words that I'd cooperate with every editor I come across no matter how offensive they are or how bad their attitude is, my response would be considered unsatisfactory.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you fail recognize your own mistakes. That's the problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban given the response directly above this. Preemptively refusing to collaborate is an attitude incompatible with editing here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I refuse to collaborate with editors using language like this. If you think using the word "idiot" warranted an indef block then what about this?U¹ _quattro TALK 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHEAPFLOPPYBOOMERANG . — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz I'm not making an unblock request. Even when blocked, I won't. Because when I'm expected to contribute with such people for being unblocked, I'd rather stay blocked.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro So you are essentially asking to be blocked in order to have a healthy discussion about your behaviour because you can't comprehend WP:NOTTHEM otherwise? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It mightn't be necessary, but I would like to point out that U1Quattro's link above regards a third editor, not me (OP). It's a boomerang flung after someone else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support regular indef block till user adequately addresses their problem with interactions (and any other condition agreed to here) per subsection below in which Ivanvector says he blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Levivich, for consistent intransigent behavior, even continuing on his talk page after being blocked. Resowithrae (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

U1Quattro has made 10 edits in this discussion, each one failing or outright refusing to acknowledge that their own poor attitude is the reason we're here talking about this, not the defensive reactions of the users they keep getting in fights with. A reasonable person ought to have long ago clued into the fact that getting in fights all the time might not mean that everyone else is to blame, particularly after so many editors have tried to explain, but U1Quattro just will not listen, and we've all wasted enough time. U1Quattro is indefinitely blocked. There is fairly strong consensus to elevate this to a site ban but that discussion should continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I note above, I think this is a reasonable outcome, pending an agreement from U1Q to significantly alter their interactions with others. If that happens, I'm OK with this not being a community-imposed CBAN, requiring another community discussion to unban. Just a normal indef bock is fine. Also I noticed the edit summary that U1Q linked to just above, and just want to say somewhere for posterity, "no, you don't have to put up with that". I've left a warning for the other editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 all of the above. I'll counter-note, however, that it seems as though U1Q was campaigning against any development of that article for several days before Davey's clearly frustrated outburst. Not that that makes it okay, but, you know, context does matter. Also also: Davey had already acknowledged and apologized after the first time U1Q dropped that diff in this thread, and U1Q bringing it up a second time to a different admin is clearly asking the other parent, and more evidence of their battleground mentality. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• FYI I've apologised to U1 for that outburst[39], As explained on my talkpage I've worked 3-4 days on that article trying my damned best to source it and improve the article as much as I could .... so i'll be honest it was disheartening and frustrating to see someone come alone and simply wipe away the work I put in,

Still I shouldn't of said what I did and I apologise for that edit summary, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, absolutely warranted by a country-mile but still uncivil - thank you for your apology and outstanding work to recover these articles :) Ed talk! 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have observed U1Quattro pushing several other editors over the edge in the past. I could be wrong, but I remember at least User:Typ932, User:Vauxford, User:Ybsone, and User:1292simon all getting in hot water over altercations with U1Q. There are probably more. I don't know if their statuses warrant any sort of reconsideration? Obviously they should have all been better at dealing with situations, but it has been frustrating to watch mostly good editors leaving and getting blocked.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Why should I be reconsider over this? After the IBAN between U1Quattro and Ybsone I backed away and tried to avoid the commotion as much as I could. Because I knew I would of end up in all sorts of mess if I kept getting involved. I already learnt the hard way of that happening to me anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonna chime in here and say Tps leaving was more to do with me than it was him. (U1 for whatever reason jumped on my AN3 report but either way U1 wasn't the reason). No comment on the rest but Tps IMHO should be struck. –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Allright, then I was worrying for nought. Good.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kedrick Brown

has been hijacked and rewritten. Can someone handle that please (split or discard)? Cheers, --Achim (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - restored old version - will start new draft and invite Kdb0152 (talk · contribs) to edit there. Ed talk! 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw Achim55, in future you can go to the page history and use a tool like Twinkle or RedWarn to quickly restore it and warn the offending party. Ed talk! 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF is going on here? Kdb0152 is a WP:SPA and likely connected to the the questionably-notable actor. The user subsequently moved the article to Albert Kedrick Brown (I moved it back because Kedrick Brown appears to be the common name). The content that Kdb0152 is adding includes: "Houston made and Littlerock raised, actor Kedrick Brown is making major waves in Hollywood. This talented actor is catching the attention of major network execs, directors and producers throughout the film and television world. Brown began acting at the age of twelve. He graduated from Midland Robert E. Lee High School as an UIL All Star Cast Member and decided to further his acting training after being convinced by his Theatre Arts teacher. Brown then went on to earn his Bachelor of Arts in theater from the University of North Texas and trained in the University of Houston’s M.F.A. program with a focus in acting". That is... differently neutral. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please block for longer

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 is disturbing, please remove talkpage access and block for way longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.103.40.125&oldid=972725253 --BlueCrabRedCrab 14:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

BlueCrabRedCrab, WP:999. Read the page notice. Ed talk! 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've rev-del'd the offending edits, and contacted the Emergency email, as per WP:999. If something like this comes up again, as it says in the warning box above when you post, reach out to an admin privately, or email the Oversight team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Block extended. All edits revdeleted. El_C 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C already knows this, but when someone is using an IP address for only a few hours (at most), making a block really really long is not going to make any difference to anything. Hence, I have blocked:

• 85.103.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and
• 85.108.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

for 2 weeks. I don't have time right now to follow this up properly, but I would recommend a trawl through these contribs, and perhaps check for others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel it's best to err on the side of severity when it comes to attacks of such a serious nature. (Also, I blocked an IP range yesterday for 3 years, so to call 3 months "really really long," well, that's a relative premise.) El_C 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all, esp. you, zzuuzz--I saw earlier today there was an edit on that article and was struck by the title, but was busy doing something else; now I wish I had followed up immediately. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 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.

Removal of patroller right

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 admins, can I ask if someone can remove my patroller right. I haven't used it in god knows how long, and probably wont use it in the near future. Thanks Nightfury 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury: just to be sure, you no longer want the "new page reviewer" or the "pending changes reviewer" flag? Salvio 11:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano New page reviewer please. Nightfury 11:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury:  Done. Salvio 11:52, 12 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.

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection...

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.

---

Top of the morning to you all; some help over there would be appreciated. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 12 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.

2020 Bangalore riots

Riots / violence that took place recently in the city of Bangalore. This article is getting the same level of attention and vandalism as 2020 Delhi riots, considering how OpIndia (RSP entry) has written about it today. Tons of off-wiki canvassing already happening, regarding both pages. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Woody has bumped the article to ECP, that should help. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JohnRichardSmith666

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 am not sure, but is this a continuation of a banned account somewhere? Seems rather suspect to me. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The draft he has created contains all kinds of BLP violations - seems to be an attack page.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I read through that, was part of the concern I had for reporting here. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you know who he is a potential sock of? If so, let us know so we can see if WP:DUCK applies. If not then try at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I am very suspicious of the type of user that creates a draft like that and thought it prudent to post here, thinking maybe one of the admins might notice something. Nothing else I can think of or do. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This would likely be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, a recurring self-promoter (or someone closely involved in some social media drama). The case is stale, but seems to be re-activated after a longer break. Callum Precious was a previously-deleted article. Anyway, blocked the account as likely sock and deleted the draft due to serious WP:BLP concerns (and as sock-created, mostly nonsensical and/or private content). On a sidenote, putting controversial WP:BLP content into Wikipedia with "citation needed" tags is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for the report. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've G10'd the draft anyway - doing more digging there is no reason for this to remain up other than to bully/attack a troubled minor. I think there may be some IRL links to what's going on here, but that's not any of our business at this time. Ed talk! 17:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow . Put both on my watchlist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dam, that went a fair bit deeper than I thought. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 10 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.

Article about Kamala Harris in "The Atlantic"

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.

---

Just a head's up that there will probably be even more interest in her page, since this article came out today. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Her father's Jamaican & her mother's Indian, so how is she an African-American. Something for greater minds to ponder. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, one of those greater minds would be Sen. Harris's mother, then. I am sorry if all this is too complex. From what I understand there's those who claim she's not African-American because she's not descended of enslaved people. By analogy, that would suggest you're only White American if your ancestors were on the Mayflower? It's a ridiculous claim. Someone who has African ancestry and is born and raised in America, such a person can legitimately be called...yes, African American, which is apparently what she calls herself, and which certainly is what reliable sources call her. So, GoodDay, you can either accept that, or you can be like one of these people screaming on Facebook that VIRUSES ARE SO SMALL THEY CAN'T BE CAUGHT BY A FACEMASK, as if they are experts. BTW Donald Harris has US citizenship, it seems, which makes me wonder how your "Her father's Jamaican" is to be taken. See? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, THAT'S going to leave a mark. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

But, did they pronounce her name correctly? I guess I'm not a greater mind as I don't even understand this human constructed concept of "race". We are all mutts. But, if we are going to divvy up people by "breed", yeah, she's African-American. And pure breeds tend to have more mental/physical ailments. This is going to be one ugly election. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

O3000, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't do the "breed" thing in a context where chattel slavery was a thing. I'm sure you actually do understand the concept of "race", and yes it really matters. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, apologies. Whole thing really pisses me off. It's 2020 and racism is becoming more of a problem instead of less. But, I did have a sense this morning that I went too far. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if reading that article taught me anything, it's that we all need to proofread our comments better. The number of [sic]s is just embarrassing. Lev!vich 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Although the notification about the Atlantic article is OK, this noticeboard is not a place to debate article content (use the article talk page) or to debate current events (try social media). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My name wasn't mentioned in the article, so how exciting can it be? ... Drmies (talk) 21:14, 14 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.

Template editor privilege 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.

---

Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused his template editor privileges at Module:Episode table. See the discussion at Template_talk:Episode_table#Implementing_Template:Sronly where he has reverted after a fellow template editor brought up objections based on WP:TPECON and he has not found consensus for his edits (nor did he prior to the initial change, which is also required by WP:TPECON). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: who has blocked/unblocked him regarding edit-warring. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have support for my edits. One editor disagreeing is not a lack of consensus. I see that Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor was brought up elsewhere, so I'll point out that it is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex. No reason was provided for the initial revert other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, meaning that Koavf did indeed revert based on "sheer reflex"; WP:BRD was quoted in the discussion but quickly nullified with the reasons listed at WP:BRD-NOT.

Koavf, shall I be pinging the administrators who have blocked/unblocked you twice in the past seven weeks? Or if we're dating old blocks, as you have, I'm counting 34 entries in your log. Will you be pinging them yourself? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I don't think your bad faith WP:POINT-y questions will do you any favors on this noticeboard but to assume good faith, yes, please do ping whomever you think is relevant to assess your judgement or lack thereof in this discussion. I've made the report here and this shouldn't be a back-and-forth for the two of us, so I won't be posting here unless someone else requests it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, are we not here to discuss my "behaviour"? Do you not have any comments regarding the "Dispute with a fellow template editor" quote I provided you concerning your own edits? Nor the comments about consensus? Remember, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. As far as I can tell, you are the only editor who has disagreed, and you still have not provided a reason for your revert, other than that "out of sheer reflex". -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, Alex, this is not a place for the two of us to bicker. I have made my case that you contravened WP:TPECON and that you have not done your due diligence in seeking consensus before or after your edits and that you have either not understood or willfully misconstrued a policy. I am now explicitly requesting that you stop pinging me and stop attempting to have an interpersonal conversation on this message board: that is not the function of this board. If admins need my input, they will request it here. I left this for them to assess if you are acting in accord with the requirements of a template editor. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, are you stating that I am not allowed to reply and defend myself against such a false report? I will reply with my side as I wish, it is not your right to say I cannot. Given that you are the reporting editor, my comments will naturally be initially directed towards you, especially when you include WP:POINT-y remarks about unrelated four-year-old content.

Nevertheless, your reply is still required at the template's talkpage. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I have tacitly asked you to stop pinging me in this discussion and explicitly asked you to stop pinging me. I have told you that I am only going to give my feedback if requested by an admin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf (not pinged), then only give your feedback when requested, I'm not stopping you. You filed the report, I will be replying to you until asked a question by another editor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Returning to my own initial comment, I'll be pinging El_C and Ivanvector in regards to the above editor and their report. I believe this editor was recently blocked for contentious editing, in which a self-suggested condition of their unblocking was to discuss changes to accessibility rather than directly reverting them, especially when without reason. This latter action is what resulted in the discussion linked and the restoration of the code that was removed without reason.

The edit history at Module:Track listing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a module I have directly edited myself) is also quite interesting; there's quite a number of edits from the editor that weren't discussed before implementing, a behaviour that this editor has reported as unacceptable. I'm not quite sure how the standard works here? If someone could explain that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I would also like to note that I have specifically asked the editor to discuss the content (as per a template's talk page), not the conduct (which belongs here) on the talk page, as shown here. They have sinced replied thrice ([40][41][42]), deliberately doing anything but; see my specification on what I have answered here. I am attempting to discuss the content with the editor and iron out the issues that they may have with the changes, but one cannot discuss changes and gain any form of consensus if the other editor refuses to respond. Discussions must be two-way, not just posting "answer me then I'll answer you" then refusing to do so once I comply with their request. Here's an example of them copy-pasting the same bludgeoning answer ([43][44]), despite me continuing the content discussion between their posts. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947134&oldid=971947051 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947469&oldid=971947222 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, what seems to be the issue there? Are you linking to the diff where I ask you if you're taking credit for my compromising suggestion to you? I would like to point out to the reading administrator that the reporting editor claimed I refused to provide an alternate option[45], I responded by providing three diffs where I did quite the opposite and suggested a compromise (my response[46] and the three compromising comments [47][48][49]). They they claimed credit for my suggestions[50] and when I asked them twice[51][52] if they were doing exactly that, they refused to answer. They then claimed that my pings to them were harassment[53], but somehow, continuing to discuss conduct over content on a template's talk page after being requested not to is not. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Section break

The thread on the talk page was... not illuminating. The above is not better. Let's try another format. I have questions for each of you. Please answer them directly and briefly. Do not mention the other's conduct.

• @Koavf: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged". Please
  • 1) Please briefly (no more than 1-2 sentences) explain your "good cause" for reverting.
  • 2) Was there "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged"? If so, where, and what was its result? If not, why? (You may briefly mention the other's conduct if you answer the last question, but only if their conduct is relevant.)
• @Alex 21: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "When a template editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another template editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Your edit was reversed (rightly or wrongly). You reinstated it.
  • Where was the "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision"?

Please respond in the below space. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• For Koavf: 1.) Visual changes to templates are supposed to have substantial consensus before they are done. This was not done here: process-wise, there should be a discussion first. 2.) There was no discussion before Alex 21's initial edit and there was ongoing discussion at Template talk:Episode table when Alex 21 reverted: he didn't wait for more than two hours to try to reach consensus before reverting to this preferred version. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf:

  1) OK. That's a procedural issue. Did you have any substantive issues with the edit?

  2) There was ongoing discussion when Alex reverted your revert. However, was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit?

  (Also, after you reverted Alex 21, they asked why you reverted them about two hours later, and then reverted your revert after about 16 hours (and over 3000 words between you).)

  Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757, 1.) Yes, I do: this contradicts what users would expect, doesn't offer an option for hiding or displaying, and is contrary to the examples at MOS:TABLECAPTION, which assume that it's a displaying caption. In addition to the procedural issue. 2.) So, six hours after the conversation started. He is not interested in a good faith attempt at consensus and is just reverting because he prefers it. This is obviously contrary to Wikipedia:Template Editor (in addition to the original edit itself, which was also contrary to that policy). This is the problem: there is an assumption of both good judgement about edits and collegiality about objections and he is ignoring both. Plus the harassment and misuse of {{collapse top}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: OK. Re #2, I think we're talking past each other. Was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit (that is, before 12:15 UTC on the 8th)? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757, No. He initiated discussion after I reverted his edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• For Alex 21:

This [54] is the discussion that occurred between my starting it after the initial revert, up to my next restoration of my edit to the module. Noting that my last comment before the restoration was [c]oncerning "no obvious documentation", please don't lie., this is the point where I later collapsed the rest of the discussion [55], as the discussion provided by the opposing editor continued onwards over conduct rather than content. It is at that point that I did consider and currently still consider the end of the discussion where content talk was given more than conduct talk.

Per WP:SILENCE, [c]onsensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). Obviously, silent consensus existed but it was clear by the initial revert and voiced response to the discussion I started that this was no longer so. However, when an editor refuses to discuss the content, it is not possible to gain any agreement from them for their opposition, so one cannot contest the opposition.

The decision for the level of consensus was determined by: remembering from WP:CONSENSUS that [c]onsensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, that voiced agreement for the edit was given by another editor [56], and that there was no further opposition, and that the opposition from a single editor (an editor that had removed themselves from the content discussion) does not automatically mean that there is no consensus. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I feel kind of silly for this, I totally missed the the third party in that section... (In my defense, that section is larger than the module it is discussing.) Whether it meets the "clear discussion" requirement is an exercise left to the reader —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, no worries, I can easily see how it could be missed! The same editor replied again today with further support [57] and a suggestion of a flag parameter can be created to allow the caption if it does not duplicate information. This is the same suggestion I've made and commented on myself thrice [58][59][60], but to no response. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: OK, thanks. I will make a proposal shortly. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

@Alex 21 and Koavf: OK. Thank you both for humoring me with this alternative dispute resolution service. I'm going to make a proposal and explain my reasoning.

• 1. As to the content: we make an it an option, rather than hardcoded one way or the other. (What the default should be is something not within the scope of AN.) Given that both of you have proposed this (with different defaults), I hope there's no objection to this.
• 2. Both of y'all deserve a WP:TROUT for the... abundant... discussion you've created. Come on. I can't decide whose fault it is. Personally, I find the tone of Koavf's comments ever-so-slightly worse than Alex's, but, on the other hand, "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not a good way to open a productive discussion. In any case, both of y'all should do better.
• 3. As to Alex 21, this report is closed with a second trout. It was 2-1 in favor of their version, and the discussion, if you squint a bit, looks enough like "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision" that I think any action would be inappropriate. That said, (1) the discussion was not particularly clear (or at all, if I'm being honest), (2) any consensus reached was quite weak, and (3) it would have been more prudent to gain another editor's opinion instead.
• 4. We {{hat}}/{{hab}} the section on the talk page and start a new discussion on what the default should be. If both of you consent, I'd like to moderate it in some way so it's less of a shitshow than discussion to date.

Thoughts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1. I agree with the flagged option, as I was the initial editor to suggest this. Understood that AN is not the location to determine the default, but I agree as long as it is defaulted to not show with the option to show. Templates should cater to the majority of uses and have a case for the minority, they should not cater to the minority of uses and have a case for the majority. To do this, I would suggest using keeping |caption= as an invisible caption, with |visiblecaption= as an optional replacement; not a flag as such, but replacing |caption= with |visiblecaption= to show it. However, as stated, not the place for it, so I'm happy to discuss it elsewhere.
• 2. Perhaps "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not the best way to go, but editors need to learn that edits reverted without discussion is bad-faith editing and not at all collaborative. Per BRD, it is up to either editor to start a discussion. We'll all get along better when editors try to.
• 3/4. If this report is closed, can we then get the template talkpage discussion closed as well, for completeness's sake? I assume that's what option 4 means with the hat/hab, which I agree with.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 04:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, In terms of dispute resolution, sounds good: thanks. In terms of Alex 21's behavior and poor judgement as a template editor, I feel like you are missing this entirely. Do you not think his behavior here is inappropriate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I do think his behavior here is inappropriate. I also, however, think your behavior, and in particular your revert without discussion, was inappropriate (recall that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "(if possible)", you should have "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged", which you did not). I also don't think that WP:TPEREVOKE is on the table for Alex, given that no "pattern of obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus" has been shown. If you wish for action to be taken against Alex, what action do you believe would be appropriate with respect to Alex's conduct? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, I don't have a perspective on that: I'm leaving up to admins' judgement. My goal in posting here was not a matter of dispute resolution but one of point out inappropriate behavior on the part of an editor, so if you think it's just a matter for dispute resolution and then the behavioral issues is either non-existent or doesn't merit any particular action on your part, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I just find it pretty shocking that in addition to his misuse of advanced user rights, he's also harassing me on this board as well as on the talk page and that this behavior doesn't merit any kind of action to curtail how he is acting. I figured using WP:AN for harassment would be a really big no-no, but I guess not. This just emboldens him to harass other users in the future, including on the admins' noticeboard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How I have I harassed you at this board? Pinging you and responding to you is not harassment. I am required to ping you to notify that I have responded to you in the discussion we were a part of. Asking me not to ping you is you deliberately distancing yourself from the discussion, indicating that you have withdrawn from it.

In fact, if asking me not to do something and then me continuing to do it is considered harassment, then in the same vein, me asking you not to discuss conduct over content on a talkpage and then you continuing to do it can also be considered harassment. Per WP:HARASSMENT, harassment is "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing"; is that not what you were doing by repeatedly ignoring my requests before I ignored yours? Be careful of boomerangs when you come to AN.

Luckily, I'm not overly phased by your actions there, and I'm happy to continue discussing the content with you in a civil mannter, as suggested by Mdaniels. Shall we close the first discussion and start the second one about the conditions of in/visible captions? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

People have been indeffed for using thank to poke opponents, although that has occurred in cases much more serious than this. Regardless of Koavf's sins, your inability to stop pinging him when requested is not a sign of collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I know you stated [r]egardless of Koavf's sins, but I do request for my own clarification, is the discussion of conduct over content on a talkpage after being asked not to also considered harassment? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The action against Alex 21 would be to revoke his template editor right because aggressive reverting using that right is not acceptable. There has probably been enough noise to hide the underlying issue and I don't have the energy to investigate. Diff and the absurd demand show the problem and Alex should be aware that such a style is not compatible with an advanced right. Even if Koavf was wrong and Alex right (I have no idea about that), the correct procedure would be for Alex to not revert (assuming no emergency) and to post a polite question about why Koavf had reverted along with a polite explanation for why Alex's edit should stand. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issue between concerning the edit goes back before even I started the discussion. Remember that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, [a] template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. No such good cause or prior brief discussion was provided by the opposing editor at the time. The correct procedure would have been to not revert at all at the very beginning, and go straight to discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that I am unable to convince you so let me express it like this. I will remove your template editor right if you use it aggressively in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the notification. What of the opposing editor's template editor right? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have got heavy in this discussion because I see that you have done a lot of work at related modules. Nevertheless, I think the template editor right should be used only while in Pollyanna mode. I don't think it would be useful to discuss the general issue of whether Koavf should have done his revert here although I suspect the answer would be seen by investigating whether there was a clear consensus for your change before this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Indeed I have; over 3,000 edits to the template and module spaces. I don't get the Pollyanna reference, but in the future, I would just simply appreciate it if the opposing editor didn't cite a guideline while also not following it themselves. Hopefully we can get to the implementation discussion soon; I've already prepared the sandbox and testcases for the discussion of how to fix the caption issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, See discussion with Johnuniq below. He deliberately still doesn't get it, as far as I'm concerned. Are you saying that his behavior was acceptable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I never said his behavior was acceptable; indeed, I said that "I do think his behavior here is inappropriate". Johnuniq characterized his use of the permission as "aggressive", and I agree with that. However, your behavior was not appropriate either (and also violated Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, which you have been citing against Alex). If it were up to me (and it is not), I would still close this without action because (1) WP:TPEREVOKE is a high bar that I don't think is met and (2) if Alex's behavior is poor enough that, per WP:TPEREVOKE, his permissions should be revoked, your behavior also meets that standard (that is, I don't see a way out of this where one of you is sanctioned and the other is not). In my opinion, it is in both of your best interests to WP:DROPTHESTICK. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, Okay, well thanks for providing your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Koavf: Which specific stipulation of WP:TPECON are you alleging that Alex breached to begin with, in making the edit without prior discussion? It's not obvious to the casual observer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, "Changes that should be made ONLY after substantial discussion: Changes that significantly affect a template or module's visual appearance to the reader. "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if were in shades of pink?" ... Bring it up on the talkpage first." which never happened. This initial edit should not have occurred and then I reverted and Alex started a conversation and reverted without any consensus (in addition to harassing me on the talk and this page). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear, the change that was implemented was the generalized visual suppression of any and all captions, as a new default, that did not previously exist before? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Koavf: ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, That is correct: Alex 21's edit was one that "significantly affected a template or module's visual appearance to the reader" by taking a visual element and making it not display, which should have been discussed first and wasn't. Then, after this was brought to his attention, he reverted to his preferred version with no consensus (and harassed me on this page, etc., etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: It has come to my attention that the reporting editor has been blocked for a month for an unrelated incident. How do you propose we move forwards given this development? In preparation for the fourth point of your proposal and the second discussion that you had suggested, I had prepared sandbox edits and testcases, ready to present. What is the best way to proceed? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:40, 15 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.

my account has not been automatically

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.

---

Sorry, even though 4 days have passed since my account was created and I had more than 10 edits, but my account has not been automatically verified yet. Please do it for me.--Biliards Player (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Biliards Player, four full days (96 hours) have not passed yet. They will very soon. When you posted the above, less than 95 hours had passed since your account was created. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC) @Billards Player:} Created on 11 August 2020 at 06:33) current time is 06:21 as per my signature and you posted at 05:31 as per your signature. So no it has not been 4 days. When we say four days when mean 4 days, not 3 days 22 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:} So why did I have 4 full days in my account?--Biliards Player (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biliards Player: you don't. You would only have 4 days at 06:33 and the current time is 06:25. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biliards Player: You have not yet had four full days in your account. That will happen in about 10 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you very much for your help.--Biliards Player (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

For the future (more for SL/NE), there are some places where time passage is rounded (e.g. on mobile for time since last edit). I expect that is the case hereand it really was displaying as 4 days for this user. --Izno (talk) 06:34, 15 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.

Need a close

We need an uninvolved and fairly patient admin to read through Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#E-960 and close it. There are some options: let it go with a self-imposed ban on "Religion" topics, let it go altogether!, or impose a community-supported topic ban in an area to be determined (there are some options). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding Dreamy Jazz's successful traineeship.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

KHive

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

Content relating to first use of hashtag by Eric Chavous sourced to Vox has been removed without any meaningful reason multiple times. I last restored it with this edit. That was my second restoration, another one would have been an edit war so I'm posting here. A campaign on Twitter seems to be responsible for it; some other person claims to have started this hashtag but only source seems to be their own blog. That person canvassed on Twitter and several responded with edits on the page. So, this article should be checked and perhaps locked. 117.251.196.240 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article earlier today for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Block review 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.

---

Govvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm requesting a review of 331dot's block of Govvy. The block is based on the rev-delled edit summary that accompanied this diff. While I confess that I have not seen the edit summary, it was at least partially described here. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved admins would review the editsum and then, in light of the following context, give their input as to whether a two-week block was appropriate for an editor who had not been blocked for more than 24 hours since 2007.

Here is the context: SchroCat arbitrarily removed an infobox from Nick Wilton without citing any policy to justify the removal [61] and he subsequently edit-warred to enforce his removal without ever taking the dispute to the article's talk page [62], [63]. Another editor, Back ache, raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, where a lively discussion has ensued. In the course of that discussion, there was some unpleasantness between Govvy, SchroCat, and Cassianto, including a moment where Govvy regrettably called SchroCat a 'weird one'. Eventually, Govvy opened an ANI thread that was closed after going nowhere [64]. After the thread was closed, Govvy commented beneath the discussion to express his dismay [65], leading to a brief edit war with SchroCat [66]. While editors are not supposed to post to closed discussions, it happens freqeuntly and there is no consistent enforcement of the rules in this regard. In this instance, admin 331dot showed up at Govvy's talk page to warn him against posting to a closed discussion [67]. A little bit later, SchroCat also showed up to lecture Govvy and accuse him of being petulant [68]. This was completely unnecessary as 331dot had already warned Govvy about posting to a closed discussion, and one could reasonably construe SchroCat's post as a form of baiting. Govvy was then blocked for the edit summary that he used while removing SchroCat's post.

The block is particularly dubious given that a blatant instance of incivility by one of the involved parties has been completely ignored. I would appreciate it greatly if an uninvolved admin would review this diff in which SchroCat refered to me as a waste of space. If it is not immediately clear from the context that SchroCat was referring to me, please scroll up within the diff to the thread mentioned above and you'll see the exchange between myself and SchroCat. You can see from the chronology that following the closure of Govvy's thread, SchroCat moved down to a separate thread that had nothing to do with me and personally attacked me while making an unrelated comment. While I cannot read the edit summary that led to Govvy's block, I would be very interested to know whether it rose to the level of calling a fellow editor a 'waste of space'. In light of this diff and SchroCat's baiting behavior at Govvy's talk page, I am requesting that they be warned that such behavior will not be tolerated in the future. I would have been willing to overlook the attack against me, but not after SchroCat bullied Govvy into getting himself blocked.

To summarize, SchroCat is Editor A, Govvy is Editor B, and I am Editor C. Editor A baits Editor B and attacks Editor C. When Editor B lashes out in response, 331dot blocks Editor B for two weeks and doesn't say a word to Editor A. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat reverted my notification with the following edit summary: Bugger off. I am utterly disinterested in people who spend so much time in trying to get other people blocked. Anyone who reads my post can see that I am asking for a block review and a warning; I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked. But given what we know about the edit summary for which Govvy was blocked, I would be interested to know if it really was any worse than this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Good block, though perhaps the duration could have been shorter. Would be open to shortening it in response to a productive appeal. As to the rest of your post, please see WP:NOTTHEM. ST47 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

NOTTHEM applies to an appeal by the blocked editor. I'm not the blocked editor, nor is this really an appeal. I'm simply trying to present the full context, which shows that there was fault on both sides. I'd like to understand why one editor was blocked two weeks for an uncivil edit summary on their own talk page while the other editor attacked me on a public noticeboard in a thread that had nothing to do with me and didn't even get a warning. NOTTHEM doesn't explain that level of inconsistency. It's a fair question and I want a fair answer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I appear to have gotten myself into a deeper mess than I intended to. The sequence of events from my point of view is that I noticed the addition of a post to a closed discussion, which I reverted. I then politely asked Govvy to not post to a closed discussion. They then inquired as to what I meant, and I told them. Govvy then told me that they had every right to do that. I then explained that what they did was disruptive and encouraged them to drop the stick. They responded that (among other things) they were "pissed off" and felt that ANI got something wrong. I didn't know what that meant and didn't know that there was a larger dispute at work here, I was only responding to the disruption of adding to a closed discussion. I then saw SchroCat's post to Govvy which again, I was not aware of the essence of the larger dispute but in hindsight I can see how such a post might not have been wise. Govvy then responded with an f-bomb laden personal attack which I found to be wholly inappropriate for any civil discourse and decided to block. 2 weeks was a judgement call but I felt given the belligerent nature of Govvy's posts that the length was warranted.

I've offered on their user talk page to remove the block if they would merely acknowledge that they acted inappropriately, but given this response they don't seem to want to do that. That only leads me to conclude that I was correct with the length of the block. If I was supposed to conduct an hours long FBI-level investigation of the entire matter before acting in response to an uncivil personal attack, then I will take my lumps. This is why I haven't addressed the conduct of others, because it did not seem pertinent. Again, if that was wrong, I'll accept that. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing bad about this block, whatsoever. I wish more admins would use this level of common sense. Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• This review request by Lepricavark is out of order and should not be taken up. Only the blocked editor, which Lepricavark is not, may appeal their block. Sandstein 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  As I noted above, this is not an appeal. This is a request for uninvolved admins to review the full context and take appropriate action (which or may not include an unblock). Mackensen is exactly right that this was a case of the referee catching the retaliation and not dealing with the instigator. The solution is not for you to shrug your shoulders and refuse to do anything because the wrong person pointed it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, use as many ambiguous words as you like, it's an appeal in all but name. Cassianto^Talk 21:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'll stick with my own interpretation of my own motives, thanks. Maybe I should remind you to AGF. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, no need. I don't assume good faith with people like you. You have only one motive, and that's to disrupt. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Right. I've donated hours of my life to doing menial, gnoming work that nobody else wants to do because all I care about is creating disruption. No, my track record isn't really relevant. All that matters is that I've done something you don't like, so I couldn't possibly be here in good faith. You need to get it through your skull that it's possible for somebody to disagree with you in good faith. Maybe I can't write articles as well as you can, but that doesn't give you the right to spit in my face every time I say something you don't like. You are a bully. SchroCat is a bully. It's a sad indictment on this community that the two of you have been permitted to get away with your bullying for so long simply because you have enough friends to back you up. Clearly, Govvy doesn't have the right friends, so I guess he'll have to sit out an excessive block unless he says what the blocking admin says he has to say. But if someone were to actually block you, Cassianto, the block would be lifted within a matter of hours. And so you'll just keep on bullying people indefinitely and most of them will just put up with it because they know it's not worth the trouble to take it to ANI and watch you get away with it again. That is, until one day you insult the wrong person and they decide it's worth the time and effort to open an ArbCom case. Then you're probably screwed. But until then, carry on bullying people, I guess. Doesn't look like anyone here cares enough to do anything about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely a warranted block for the comments made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• The block was a little harsh. This wasn't one-sided. ~ HAL333 20:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, is there a reason why you're stalking SchroCat and I? Not content with having already been warned about this, on these very pages, you continue with this creepy behaviour here and now at this thread. Is it merely a coincidence that you find yourself at this two pages - poles apart from each other's area of interest? I would strongly suggest you stop. Now. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Excuse me? This was posted to a public noticeboard. How HAL333 found out about it is none of your business. Again, follow the advice you tried to shove down my throat yesterday and AGF. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, keep your nose out. It has nothing to do with you. Cassianto^Talk 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto It has nothing to do with you either. Did I mention you or Schrocat in my comment? In case you haven't realized the world doesn't revolve around you. Please assume good faith. ~ HAL333 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, you don't have to mention us. You post at the same venues, and that is enough. Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Cassianto, Lepricavark, and HAL333: cool it. There is no need to be uncivil. Cassianto, please don't make personal attacks towards other editors, including calling them "disruptive" and not assuming good faith. You also made a comment below attacking an IP editor, who's points are just as valid for discussion here as ours are (see WP:BITING). You all know better. Thanks. Ed talk! 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto, so far, you've issued a blatant personal attack against me and accused another editor of stalking because they dared to post on a highly-visible message board. It's clear that you've successfully derailed my thread and it will probably be closed down soon. Might want to stop before you go too far and some admin decides to treat NPA as more than a mere suggestion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto I'm sorry I didn't realize this was your "venue". I only commented about Govvy, and even deprecated my statement with the edit summary "My two cents". But since you are so desperate to make this about you, I have added my view of your conduct below. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good illustration of the principle that the referee always catches the retaliation, not the original incident. So it goes. I probably can't be considered uninvolved, given that in the past decade I've expressed strong views on the infobox question, but Cassianto is already on infobox probation and his comments to Redrose64 and others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography would, in my view, warrant a further enforcement block under that case or an outright topic ban given the general unhelpful and unpleasant nature of his contributions in that area. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Block was warranted, but a bit long. I also agree with Sandstein that we shouldn’t be reviewing this without an appeal from Govvy. If he were to make an appeal, I’d possibly suggest shortening the length of the block or unblocking depending on the content. The reason having an appeal is needed in most cases is because this wasn’t a flagrant abuse of discretion and there actually was an underlying issue. It makes no sense to lift a block without an appeal if there’s actually something to the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, I was hoping that this thread would establish that the block, even if justified, was too long. Govvy hasn't been blocked for personal attacks since 2007; there was no need to jump straight to two weeks. Sure, it's Govvy's fault that he got blocked, but it's not Govvy's fault that the block was too long. You should be able to resolve the part that isn't Govvy's fault regardless of what Govvy does or doesn't do. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  There’s a good reason we typically don’t like third-party threads. They typically create more heat than light and usually end with people on different sides of the underlying dispute fighting with one another. I agree that I’d probably shorten the block, but I don’t really see a good reason to do that when Govvy hasn’t asked in an appeal. There’s nothing really egregious here, so I think we can wait on that and handle it through the normal unblock process, which in my opinion is usually less intense and more productive than AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's not entirely a third-party thread. I was involved in a pair of related discussions and was targeted by the same user that baited Govvy. This wouldn't have been necessary at all if more of an effort had been made to enforce NPA in a consistent, even-handed manner. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an admin to acknowledge the existence of SchroCat's PA against me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is about where I fall.

  I think that the edit summary in question was absolutely a personal attack.

  Would I have blocked for that length? I probably would not have.

  Do I believe that the block was abusive, or outside of discretion? Not at all.

  Do I believe that the block was preventative, and not punitive? I do. In my opinion, this is evidenced by 331dot's comment: I would be happy to remove the block if they concede that their actions were inappropriate (I don't seek an apology, just an acknowledgement) and agree to better control themselves in the future. They are also free to make an unblock request for someone else to review this. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  As of the time of this comment, no unblock request has been initiated. SQL^{Query me!} 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How is Govvy suppose to post here if he blocked?? Also from what I understand isn’t all Cassianto posts a conflict of interest if he was one of the original people involved in the conflict? There are more issues than the block, however the instigation should be warned away also. 2A01:4C8:60:F0CE:75C6:FC17:FB89:BCFB (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want people to take your comments seriously, why don't you log yourself in, rather than hide behind an anonymously IP address? Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, your comments should and will be taken seriously and are just as valid as a logged-in editor's comments Ed talk! 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767: They will be taken seriously only if the editor is a true IP, and not an editor with an account who has logged out to comment, I believe that is the meaning of Cassianto's comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am just a Tottenham fan, I’ve rarely done an edit on Wikipedia, I just read a lot, I know Govvy because his name always pops up on those articles. That is all. 2A01:4C8:60:F0CE:75C6:FC17:FB89:BCFB (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the length is excessive. Not going to comment on the block itself but I see no reason for a two week duration when their is practically no history of issues. I would probably recommend 24-36 hours for a first offense in over a decade. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll have to agree with Mackensen. Cassianto's violation of his probation merits a enforcement block or at least a reprimand. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, I think this might be what you're looking for, specifically the part that says "The user under probation may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.". Check the facts before you type. It makes you look more informed. Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock - Here's what I saw happen: Govvy is bullied, complains about it, the thread is shut down, his post is deleted, and he's told to drop the stick about his bullying complaint. He's bullied some more, lashes out, and ends up blocked for two weeks. Ridickulous. Lev!vich 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I saw this as a possibility too, and given the behaviour of another editor in this thread is causing me to become more inclined to this viewpoint. Govvy has got the message. In this case, I don't think there's much further disruption on his part that couldn't be resolved with a conditional unblock or a shorter block. Or, maybe Govvy should just enjoy a 2-week summer break? The weather is nice. Ed talk! 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I can't see the revdel'd edit summary so assuming it warranted a block (and everyone who can see it seems to agree that it did), I would say unblock as "time served". Two weeks is too much for what seems to be an isolated offense, particularly given the provocation. Lev!vich 23:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It basically just said F off. We've seen that type of language go unsanctioned thousands of times. I'm not sure why it was particularly so much worse in this case as to warrant a 2 week block. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would only like to say that the edit summary consisted of more than F off, it also called the other user a F****** A******, in all caps. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  How is that "fuck off" and "fucking asshole" = 2 weeks, but "dick" = nothing, and complaining about "dick" = warning to drop the stick? I find this to be intolerably unfair. Lev!vich 23:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've given my explanation of my decision above. I considered the immediate problem in front of me. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I find intolerably unfair. The immediate problem in front of you was bullying. Lev!vich 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, but this is a ridiculous summary. The initial unpleasant behavior in all this was Govvy's, and when it generated an unpleasant response Govvy went to ANI to whine about it. That didn't work because duh. Govvy dealt with that by whining and being unpleasant to some more people. Possibly there are multiple people who could reasonably be warned or blocked as a result of this story, but it's not a story about Govvy being unfairly bullied. --JBL (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Don't forget about 'waste of space'. Seems just as bad as what Govvy said, but I still can't get anyone to even acknowledge that it was said. Of course, Govvy's attack was directly provoked whereas SchroCat's remark about me was made on a thread that had nothing to do with either one of us. I keep pointing this out, but it's as if nobody can see it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Does an F*** Off usually warrant a block or ANI discussion? It doesn't qualify as a PA, right? I've been subjected to those kind of attacks before and just want to know for future reference. (I'm a relative newcomer; I've been here for less than 3 years.) Thanks! ~ HAL333 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not usually. I got a similar response from SchroCat when I notified him of this thread. I think it was the other half of Govvy's edit summary that went too far. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think he had every right to be pissed, but it's still out of line, yet as an isolated incident, it still didn't exactly warrant a 14-day block IMO given the comment was said mostly in the heat of the moment in my view. However, it's hard to interpret exactly what was said given the wide range of potentially offensive words that begin with F and the same with words that begin with A. Ed talk! 23:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• The edit summary in question is Reverted 1 edit by SchroCat (talk): FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, (TW) I think the revdel was fine (though I usually don’t revdel cursing) and again, a block of some length was warranted, but there’s no reason not to have it public either while we have a thread on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock the lad & let's walk away from a cancel culture environment. As for the aforementioned edit summary? throw it at me, as I've had worst thrown at me, in my near 15 years on Wikipedia. Let's get back to the topic of infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay As I stated, I have offered to unblock if the user would acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate(I don't seek an apology, just an acknowledgement) but the user doesn't seem interested in that. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The ball is in his court then. BTW, who's the IP in this discussion? GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's not "cancel culture", it's core Wikipedia policy. Whether or not the block was excessive is another matter. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That there's no edit-warring is what's important. Editors cussing at each other in discussion or through edit-summaries? we can survive that. The policy WP:CIVIL, has several interpretations. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock I concur with Levivich's summary. It's plain to see that this situation has not been handled evenly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion about the validity or the duration of the block, but I want to comment on the point raised by Sandstein. There's nothing procedurally improper about this block review thread, and there is no procedural requirement for a review/appeal by the blocked user. An unblock request is a separate procedure and that one indeed can only be requested by the blocked user. We have a formal and well defined process for that. Here at WP:AN the community can review any admin action by any admin, including a block, an unblock, protection, deletion, whatever. That's what WP:AN is for and such community block reviews are done here all the time, often at the request of the blocking admin in fact. Nsk92 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock I think Govvy gets the point. I trust that they'll be a little more restrained next time. ~ HAL333 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Based on what do you think that? --JBL (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the interactions between these editors, what's obvious to me is that they don't play nicely together and it's best for everyone if they're separated. The 14-day block of Govvy might have been a bit strong in context; but if we unilaterally rescind the block without doing anything else, then nothing gets better. Maybe ibans are the right tool here.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  That is overly simplistic. We don't deal with bullying by punishing the bully and the victim alike. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering if Govvy simply left in disgust over what he felt was 'sanctioned bullying' by SchroCat and others. 331dot readily admitted that he was blocking for the immediate issue without having investigated the underlying one. It does appear that Govvy was simply pushed too far. I completely understand that level of frustration, and think that Cassianto's non-AGF commentary here (referring to a pretty generic edit as 'creepy' pretty much poisons the well against the person calling out his behavior).

I literally have no dog in this fight; I haven't interacted with any of the participants and am looking at this as a 'what-makes-wiki-en-work best' situation. On the surface, this looks like a 'more light than heat' discussion, but it really isn't. It focuses on our treatment of one another and the inherent fairness with which we base our editing on; AGF, consensus, etc.
Cassianto straight-up should have not said anything here, as all the user had to contribute was rancor and name-calling, and that accomplishes nothing. Govvy has likely left the building feeling he was treated shoddily. He lost his temper and was justifiably blocked for it. Why he was blocked as long as he was by 331dot is anyone's guess, but the apprehension noted at shortening it without the user - who's had a far cleaner block record than most of us here have - smacks of a fair amount of at the least not wanting to rock the boat or, at worst, simple cowardice at not owning up to a systemic failure of the blocking protocol.
Shorten the block and let the user know its been shortened. The guy was over-punished. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• 331dot has said that Govvy only need say the edit summary was inappropriate to be unblocked. 331dot did not stipulate that Govvy must agree with the block or say that it was fair. As that's the kind of language Govvy went to ANI to protest in the first place, seeing that edit summary as unacceptable should be straightforward (which, again, doesn't mean the block was necessarily fair). Govvy, maybe you can say "only blocking me was an unfair way to address the situation, but I admit what I said in the edit summary was inappropriate," then 331dot can unblock as offered, and we can all move onto other things while lamenting our collective failure to be consistent with regard to civility enforcement (something which isn't intended as a criticism of this block in particular [indeed, I'd also add lamentations for the headache any admin has to go through for making such a block, good or bad], but a more general statement). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, then why was I pinged? Cassianto^Talk 06:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto Does pinging mean your input is required? My outsider's view was that you didn't add something constructive to the discussion, and it was better off without it. This isn't a slam as to your other contributions or a sideways glance at your block log; it was an evaluation of your comments here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am bowing out of this time sink. I am not participating in something where I am being openly called "a bully" for responding to a ping by offering my view, and calling out an editor (who has already previously been warned for wiki stalking and admitted it). I apologise if I've said anything others have found to be "bullish", but if you don't want my opinion then don't ask for it by notifying me of such discussions and then complain when I respond to a comment that had me mentioned in it. This will be coming off my watch list and any further ping by the agitators will be considered WP:HARASSMENT. I hope you all solve the issue. Oh, and FWIW, although I'm thankful to 331dot for issuing a sound block (despite all this "cancel culture" nonsense people have been mentioning) I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say reduce block. If Govvy can then show that they understand that incivility is not a one-way street and that they should treat others how they expect to be treated themselves, then I'm not opposed to an eventual unblock. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do not unblock AFAIK, we do not do third party unblock requests. Govvy has not requested unblock as yet. Govvy has been informed of the conditions for an unblock before the current block expires. While I might not have blocked for as long, I trust TonyBallioni's judgment and do not find the block excessive or abusive. I look forward to Govvy's return, but not quite yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Since some here have said the block was too long, I have reduced it to a week. My offer to unblock immediately should Govvy do as requested still stands. 331dot (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And I think that was a good move on your part. If and when Govvy is done licking their wounded ego, I hope they take you up on your offer and take the advice you offered to heart. If that same type of incivility pops up again, there won't be anyone defending them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Now that Govvy has had time to sleep on this, hopefully they'll make a sincere unblock request. Without that, I don't think there's a lot to be done here, although the length of the block does seem a bit harsh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not really. The block is marked by 331 for immediate revocation as and when Govvy accepts that their personal attacks that led to the block were unacceptable. If they continue to refuse to do that after having 24 hours to calm down, it represents a rather worrying judgement issue and I would say the week's block is appropriate for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I had a discussion with Govvy about PAs back in March - I'm on mobile, diffs aren't easy, but it's in the Archive 6 of my talk, search for his name. I really tried to get him to accept that PAs, even 'mild' ones, aren't on, and asked him for a clear statement that he understood that and wouldn't do it again, but he didn't provide one. Maybe if I'd pursued it at the time we wouldn't be here. I'd be happy to see an immediate unblock if he were to simply acknowledge that his behaviour wasn't acceptable (he doesn't need to say that everyone else's behaviour was optimal, because it wasn't), and agree to refrain from making PAs. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• It's a shame that the way to win a content dispute is to provoke the other person into swearing.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My action should not be interpreted as any step in any content dispute. We are all responsible for our own actions; one cannot be baited if one does not take the bait. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organisms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

The purpose of the amendment was to match the scope of the existing 1RR remedy and the discretionary sanctions remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organisms

policy on women and children killed by a spouse/parent

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 This has been raised with regard to Murder of Hannah Clarke who was murdered by her estranged husband. Should Wikipedia have her referred to in the article as "Hannah Baxter", the name used in the Murdoch tabloids? There seems to be a growing idea in society that wives and children murdered by their husband and father should *not* be referred to by his surname because he murdered them. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 19:54, 16 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.

2020 Beirut explosions

Hi. Please can someone look at closing this move discussion that's been open for a while now? For transparency, I did vote in it myself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I can close it Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for making the request, and Nosebagbear, thanks for doing a solid close. If I could be permitted to tag onto this post a bit, the fact that a big banner notice was cluttering that page for 11 days during a very high-traffic period over what is really a pretty small question (a single letter) of interest only to editors (not readers) is an issue. It's another example of why we ought to revamp {{Title notice}}, ideally turning it into something more like the {{Move topicon}} that Netoholic proposed and Wugapodes coded. (I believe a little technical help is needed to ensure proper mobile display, etc.; after that it'll be ready to put forward for adoption.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

Category:Requests for unblock is now chronically backlogged at a very high level. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated - for a quarter of the cases I'm the blocking admin. MER-C 09:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, I do understand that there are probably many admins who work regularly on addressing these issues and they may fully understand how the page is organized, but let me share my impressions as a first time visitor to that page.

I see a notice that there is a backlog which is fine. I see some introductory sentences which seem fine. that I see a collapse section of information for administrators which I will obviously want to read but let me check out the rest of the page first.

I see a section for UTRS appeals. With a nicely organized table. I haven't totally figured out what the status column means. My guess is that "open" means that hasn't yet been touched, "admin" means the last response in the thread is from an admin but how does that differ from "awaiting reply". In my opinion, the entries are obvious such as timestamps they don't need an explanation key but if they aren't obvious should be an explanation key. (I thought maybe this would be explained in the collapsed administrator section but no)

There is a section labeled "summary". This threw me. Given the prior section covering UTRS, I thought it would be followed by a section for non UTRS blocks. I still think that might be the case but the section title is misleading. I spot check some entries in the UTRS section and don't see them in the summary section so I think I'm right but curious wording.

Presumably, the summary section is a summary table related to the entries in the category "requests for unblock" which do not inlcude UTRS requests.

There is a portion of the table that's unshaded and a portion of the table that's shaded. Presumably the distinction is important, but it's not identified. They appear to be sorted in reverse chronological order based upon request time. Are all of these open? I clicked on the first one and it looks like it's actively being worked on.

Is there some priority for which ones need attention?

Again, I recognize that regulars probably know this but if you're looking for new eyes, these new eyes aren't clear what's going on. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I myself don't know why the table has multiple shadings. @AmandaNP: who is responsible for both of those tables. MER-C 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, Well, this is embarrassing. I thought I'd try to respond to one of the UTRS entries, but I clicked on a button to see what it would do (assuming incorrectly that if I did something wrong I could undo it). I still don't know what the button did but the appeal is now marked "This appeal is closed and no further action can be taken."

That wasn't my intention. It is Appeal number: #33061 how do I undo my action?

My intended response: Let them know they were caught in a range block, which wasn't directed at them personally. I see they wish to edit a page with which they probably have a conflict of interest so I wanted to share with them the conflict of interest page, then urge them to register an account and offer to help them. I didn't see a way to start a discussion with the editor. Is there a UTRS manual?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be better to stick to on-wiki stuff at first. It will likely be less confusing. The "summary" table (which has been renamed to be more clear) is supposed to be helpful, but you can just ignore it if you find it confusing. The appeals are color-coded, I think, based on the unblock template used ({{unblock}} for standard unblock requests, {{unblock-un}} for username change requests, etc). What I did before getting involved in the unblock process was shadow a few cases. I looked at the unblock request, decided on a course of action or response, and waited to see what the responding admin did. Once I was satisfied that my instincts were not wildly off from current practice, I started responding to them. Certain types of blocks tend to languish for a long time. Sock puppetry blocks and undisclosed paid editing require some detective work, or at least some time spent reviewing evidence to make sure that it's solid. Few admins are willing to deal with a dramamonger, so drama-heavy blocks often languish in the queue, too. Another problem that I've seen is that someone will be smart enough to say all the right things, but the person is obviously incompatible with Wikipedia. There is a psychological barrier to outright telling this to someone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Thanks, I'm fine with starting with the on-wiki items, and will consider UTRS later. I liked your shadow suggestion - I've done something similar in other contexts (copyright, OTRS) and I'll try it here. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Civil Threats

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 have been trying to explain to Stayfree76 that George Floyd was murdered on the George Floyd talk page since the officers in it were charged with murder. The user tried to claim that a murder doesn’t occur until the person is convicted which clearly isn’t true as I showed an example from a terror attack. The user went on to accuse me of libel, used bold lettering to say “Fix yourself immediately” and said I could face a civil penalty. This is excessive as I never actually edited the page and seems threatening. This user has been blocked before for being uncivil but making legal threats is a whole different scenario. I always try to explain myself and to threaten someone for using a talk page just isn’t right. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, we cannot label someone a murderer until they are convicted in a court of law of murder. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

diff

Lima Bean Farmer, we have a strict policy against legal threats (see WP:NLT). I'll take a look. Ed talk! 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support an indef block here - still many issues with this editors civility following other blocks. Ed talk! 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I did not label him a murderer. I said that George Floyd was murdered. Also, that’s not the point of me coming here. The point is that another editor threatened me with civil penalties over edits in a talk page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that a NLT block may be warranted. Lima Bean Farmer, the killing has been determined to be a homicide, not a murder. It's not a murder until someone is convicted of murder for committing the act. Labeling it a murder now before someone is convicted only suggests that those who have been charged are guilty. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

331dot, We get this in the UK all the time. The coroner returns a verdict of unlawful killing. If the sole suspect is then not convicted, there is a conflict between the sources. But Stayfree 76 has been a relentlessly disruptive voice at that article, so I would support a narrow TBAN. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So, could someone please block this editor? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There's several issues here: NLT, civility, disruption. Starting with the easy one (NLT): the edit is unhelpful and might be perceived as a legal threat. It is not an overt threat to sue and doesn't warrant an immediate NLT block. The appropriate response is clarification per the "Perceived legal threats" section of WP:NLT, which I've done. None of this takes away from this editor's problems with civility and disruption, which need more review to determine if any progress has been made since the last block. Doesn't look like it at this point. Stayfree76, if you're reading this perhaps you have a view. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76 - You need to clarify this statement - say that this is not a legal threat, and we can move on. It really does borderline a legal threat, which is actionable by an indefinite block until you retract it. Let's not go down this pathway; just clarify this statement and say that it's not a legal threat, and remove the statement. I don't want to move forward with blocking you over this. Please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Woah Oshwah, what are you blocking me for? It is a legal threat. I’m not retracting that. I’d like to see myself get blocked for reporting someone threatening civil penalties against me. One thing for sure, I’m not backing down. This was a legal threat. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer! LOL! Sorry about that! I accidentally pinged you instead of Stayfree76. I caught it as soon as I hit "publish changes", and I yelled at my monitor as it saved - "NOOOO!" :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that now! Sorry Oshwah, didn’t mean to sound harsh. Just thought I was facing a block all of a sudden for no reason! No worries! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer - You have nothing to apologize for. It was my fault for pinging you instead of Stayfree76, not yours. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries Oshwah, nobody’s perfect, not even Wikipedians! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, see here. Oshwah inadvertently pinged you by mistake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talkpage too (Stayfree's, not Lima Bean Farmer's!) -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus - :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

hey all, i just want to say... of course that was not a threat. i linked to an article about what happens when media does defamation/libel, which is no joking matter, but something the user i commented to kept doing. that being said... im not the person that could sue anybody for saying anything about someone else, but the living persons definately can. its a very touchy subject, and why i thought it very important to ensure the user know without a shadow of a doubt you cannot run around calling innocent people a murderer, especially on wikipedia. (guilt until proven innocent, right?). in conclusion, maybe someone can give me a pointer at a better way to handle that situation as the person was in direct violation of wikipedia policies. in my opinion me doing it politely, which i did multiple times, is better than some formal arbitration. Stayfree76 (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Stayfree76, discussion on a talk page about the wording of an article is not against Wikipedia policy. That is what they are there for. Talk pages are a lot more relaxed and open to a discussion than editing on a page (edit warring). Perhaps this article may help. Also you should never make a legal threat. Whether or not you were planning on doing it, that is a “big no”. If ever a discussion gets out of hand, there are many sources such as the tea house and this page to get help. Arbitration would be the final step which would be for a larger issue. I haven’t even read that article you put but you should never threaten anything other than a block, and even that should be up to an administrator (or someone who can perform a block). You may also want to read this article and others like it so that you can become better at debating. It appears that many of the debates you got involved in turned into arguments. This is seen as uncivil and improper. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

i find it valuable to look at the full conversation. i explained to the person twice that it was not acceptable to call it a murder, and only the third time mentioned it can be defamatory calling someone a murderer before they are convicted of the crime and i feel i handled this very politely considering. i think we are attacking the wrong user here... i mean i kept saying its not a murder and they kept saying it was... at that point a link to defamation seemed in order as they obviously werent taking my word for it. i know english isnt the first language of everyone on wikipedia, but i am alittle unsure how it could be construed as a threat for simply mentioning something that is actionable. last thing we want is the living persons to sue wikipedia, which in the US, can easily happen, especially when this situation is on the forefront of the planet. also pinging as this seems to be important. Oshwah, Euryalus Stayfree76 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

oh yea, one final edit. yes, i was blocked for awhile, but actually if you look at all the edits i suggested which ended in me being blocked, 80% of them or more have been put into affect and tbh think i was severely misunderstood as i have cognitive disabilities and other military related disabilities and sometimes have trouble with how i write down a thought/idea. also, lima bean here has been blocked upwards of 4 times for policy violations, where i have not had a single edit reverted. please note that fix yourself is a common phrase used in the US Marine Corps as a friendly nudge to an individual engaging in incorrect behavior and is no more than a warning to ensure the person is aware of that fact. ^_^ Stayfree76 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, you’re not getting the point. You should never suggest that another editor may be sued. First, vandalism happens all the time on Wikipedia. Second, calling someone a murderer on a talk page is not defamation. That’s what a talk page is for. No editor should be discouraged from editing a talk page on constructive topics such as wording. Third, all my blocks were not related to civility or interactions with other editors. You have consistently argued with other editors and multiple other editors have warned you about this. Please read the civility article I linked above and read similar articles. This is not the military. There is no commander. If a problem gets out of hand, ask a third party editor, use the tea house, or even this page to report it and find out how it should be dealt with. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are not exempt from BLP, no place on Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, you do not have a [god-given] right to express opinions here. You may not go around accusing individuals of murder until/unless they are convicted of such. Also see 331dot's comment at the top of this thread, and read the linked policy. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, that is true. However, I was discussing the wording. I was not sure if it should be considered murder. In fact, it was deemed a homicide and 4 people were charged with his murder. I get that it shouldn’t be on there but the talk page is the perfect place to discuss this type of issue. A warning against a law suit or civil penalties should never be given out on Wikipedia, so I get what you’re saying but that statement itself is wrong. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The legal threat was crossing the line imo. ~ HAL333 16:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, please understand that it is impossible for a person to sue someone for defamation when the person suing isn't the one defamed. That fact alone should tell you that it was not a threat as i have no legal authority, at all, ever to engage in a civil lawsuit against a person in which i am not targeted by. the only person who could sue who be the person they defamed and likely it wouldnt be some random editor getting hit, but the wikimedia org itself. like come on, people in America sue for much less, lets not be the ones that are responsible for wikipedia no longer being freely edited. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Not getting the point

Stayfree76 is not getting the point that they should not be making legal threats such as they did on the George Floyd talk page. While this user made it clear they had no intention of a legal threat towards me, they have not explained that this was inappropriate or that they won’t do it again. They also don’t seem to get, based on their last edit on their talk page, that the usage of a talk page to discuss wording, such as the one for George Floyd, is acceptable, and no threat should be made. On top of all of that, their comments are still uncivil. Their most recent one in their talk page called me a “hard headed person” and said “its not about you” in bold they are not civil and now have resorted to personal attacks. The user has been repeatedly warned about this and I even gave them articles on civility. I have been civil with them this entire time. Please look into this, thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Oshwah, 331dot, JzG, or another editor, please take a look at this. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think Stayfree76 is here to WP:RGW. He has caused more disruption with his 136 edits than most editors with a hundred times that number. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what his precise motivation is, and I haven't reviewed all of the contention, but perhaps a temporary (three to six month?) TBAN on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin (and points of law) would allow him to demonstrate he can edit constructively in other areas, if indeed he is here to build an encyclopedia. It would also be nice if he would type like an adult with adult punctuation and capitalization. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lime Bean Farmer, while I think their post was wrong, so was yours. Using the talk page to discuss the appropriate wording in the article is fine. Using the talk page to discuss your personal belief that the killing was a murder is not. The fact that your personal belief is shared by the prosecutor and many others is not enough to change things. It's well accepted that the article is not going to call the killing a murder until there is a conviction for murder, therefore, please stop calling the killing a murder until that or at least unless you are genuinely asking for a change to the article rather than simply stating your personal belief. As you have already been told, WP:BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia including talk pages. At the time when this was still extremely raw in the days after the video, it's probable we let some of that stuff slide. But now, it's reasonable for us to start enforcing BLP more stringently so inappropriate comments on the talk page may be removed and the offender (i.e. you) blocked. To be clear, this does not excuse Stayfree76's comment but I think others have already made it sufficiently clear that their behaviour wasn't acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, there is a fine distinction: the medical examiners are generally reported to have ruled that the death was a homicide. That does not prejudge culpability, which is a matter for the courts to decide in respect of Chauvin and the rest. Stayfree76's position is that it can't be described as a homicide until after the trials, but that isn't stopping multiple RS from doing so and should not stop us either. The inconsistency between one legal finding that a death is a homicide and another in respect of responsibility for that homicide is really not our problem to fix: there are plenty of cases where death has been ruled as homicide at inquest but the only likely culprit has been acquitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: to be clear this has nothing to do with the word homicide, which did not occur in my comment. Since the death has been ruled a homicide by the coroner, if people want to call it such on the article talk page, that's fine. As our article says homicide "requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm" so doesn't even suggest the killing was unlawful. Although since juries seem free to talk about their verdict in the US, we know that in some cases the jury seems to have been unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a homicide, rather than concluding it was but it was lawful. And the situation in England and Wales (or the whole UK?) may be different. But how to deal with a contradiction between a coroner and court case is IMO an argument for another time and place.

Murder is what I referred to as it's normally taken to mean a specific crime at least in many common law jurisdictions in the anglosphere. (I understand it can get a little complicated in places like Greece where such distinctions are not so clear.) It's generally accepted that if the only people who can realistically be accused of the crime have known identities, are alive and available for prosecution but have not been convicted, we should not describe such a homicide as a murder. Despite that, if an editor wants to argue for some change to an article, for example that an article should call a killing a murder, that is generally an acceptable use of the talk page provided they are using reliable secondary sources and willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK if it's clear their arguments are rejected by the community.

But until that happens, if the article does not describe the killing as a murder (except for any direct quotations etc), editor's should not call it a murder either anywhere on the English Wikipedia including in talk pages, again except quotations etc where necessary. They of course free to call it what they want outside Wikipedia or to personally believe it's a murder. (By free I mean it's none of our concern. I make no comment on any external site ToS nor hypothetical legal risks.)

In the case of Lima Bean Farmer, they started off with "many people believe that race was a motive to the murder of George Floyd. Stating that the officers are white simply supports a common belief that his murder was racially motivated". While technically you could make the argument they were simply stating the common belief that this a racially motivated murder, IMO this was unnecessary. It would be easy to have simply said something like "how George Floyd was treated" which is also more inclusive. (You can believe there was a racial motivation without believing there was a murder whether that means you think there wasn't a murder or feel it's best to let a jury decide.)

Still maybe that comment by itself could be left be. But when challenged, they didn't say they were simply describing this as a common belief. Instead they followed this up with (inserted with edit) "Actually Stayfree76, it was a murder. I’m not saying that based on my beliefs, the officers were charged with murdering him. So yes, it is a murder. <snipped> But I wanted to clarify that this incident is considered murder." (end insert) and "This is a murder since all four officers were charged with murder". Now we start to have a problem. They are no longer simply describing what others believe, but are starting to argue that a charge with murder means the killing is a murder. This is flawed, but more importantly in an issue like this which directly affects those four individuals named in our articles, they should not be making such claims unless they are trying to argue for some change to our article/s. Again, they are free to make such arguments outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia isn't the place for contentious claims about living people which aren't related to article content. Call the killing a killing or homicide, but don't call it a murder except for necessary direct quotations or when a conviction (including any guilty plea) is secured. (What happens if all four accused die before a court case is another argument for a different time and place.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC) insert time: 12:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And in case it's unclear, I understand this is an emotive issue. But as I said, while it may have been okay to turn a blind eye in the early days, IMO it's come to a time where we should start enforcing BLP norms, especially since this is a case where the subject matter may be extremely notable, but the individuals are only high profile because of that one event. (By comparison, I think it's reasonable we tend to let more technical BLP vios slide with highly notable individuals e.g. Biden or Trump.) If any editor can't resist the urge to call the killing a murder, maybe it would be best for them to just edit somewhere else. Another clarification, I don't think a block of Lima Bean Farmer is already justified. I was simply making the point that if they refuse to abide by BLP and keep calling the killing a murder, they are likely to be blocked. I felt it necessary to make it clear that BLP is also important including on talk pages and they cannot simply brush it aside. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with what I understand [U|Nil Einne}} to be saying. Though LBF did not sufficiently understand the extremely broad (and in my opinion appropriately broad) way we interpret "legal threats", a block does not seem called for here, unless the conduct shows further problems. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I assume we're talking about the paragraph deleted in this edit? On the spectrum of wikibehavior, I think we're further away from the platonic ideal I'd like to see, but this is a long way from the kind of threats where blocking should be considered. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Roysmith and DGG. The OP raised a good faith concern, but the comment was not a legal threat and to the extent it was perceived as one, it's been clarified as not being so. There's still a problem with civility, especially in some edits before the block last month. The edits since the block are not all perfect either, but they're a marked improvement, and presently more in line for a continued warning than a block. The issue of how to describe George Floyd's death is a content dispute and need not be resolved on this noticeboard.

Id like to suggest a warning to Stayfree to watch the tone in their posts, and to try seeking compromise rather than entrenching themselves. Not convinced on a topic ban - there's not enough disruption to warrant it. Other views welcome as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

im not sure this should be discussed here, but thought it worth mentioning. to what extent do we allow a user to call explicitly state it was a murder, when it was not. i attempted to inform the person it was not ok, but then they started doubling down. instead wasting the time of everyone, i felt it would be nicer to inform the person of the offense and show a recent, public incident of what can happen if people or orgs continue to behave in that manner, instead of making a big deal about it elsewhere. i have brought up a few points on my own talk page directed at one of the admins, but i will also some here as this is obviously very important to alot of people and i think there is some misunderstandings on all fronts going on. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

1. the policy states "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." this is more in line with what i was doing as i was discussing with the user that their actions could be taken a defamation in us civil courts and linked an article showing potential problems faced when engaging in said actions. should i just never mention defamation anymore in talk pages?

2. the policy also states "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous"" my statement regarding defamation was singular and was not mentioned repeatedly. that being said, i mentioned that we cannot call it a murder twice before the defamation comment. does this count as repeated?

thanks, Stayfree76 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As for point 1, there's a huge difference between "is this material potentially libelous?" and "don't libel the subject." The former is asking whether certain content is appropriate, the latter is accusing an editor of legal culpability. I would encourage you to avoid any mention of defamation or libel when discussing content.

Point 2 is meant more for repeat behavior, but some posts about defatmation/libel are egregious enough to get someone blocked immediately. It's better to just avoid those terms entirely, and stick to arguing based on Wikipedia policy such as WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, that makes sense for the most post, but the BLP policy doesnt really have clear guidance in this matter other than i should have just immediately deleted him comments.

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Role of administrators.

this is more so why i was bringing it up. i dont think anyone can deny calling someone a murderer is not libelous, and after multiple attempts to fix the problem politely, i made it more clear. So should the [potentially?] libelous content be removed from the talk page? As a more personal [sincere] question; after hindsight on this exact situation, what is your personal opinion on how i should have handled it? im personally bigger into discussion with the individual in question directly than make a big deal of it if at all possible. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So, without getting too far down a legal rabbit hole here, I just want to note that, in this instance, referring to Chauvin as a "murderer" is almost certainly not libelous in any common law jurisdiction. Please note, I don't think this makes it appropriate for a BLP, but courts are arbiters of legal culpability, not moral. People who watch the video can very reasonably reach the conclusion that they have witnessed a murder irrespective of ultimate legal responsibility. That being said, I think it would have made sense to seek an administrator's help here. Generally, except in extreme circumstances, I would recommend steering clear of legal language and citing WP:BLP instead, which is both broader and subject to less technicalities. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I now understand why that should not be considered murder. However, in a content discussion on a talk page, I am allowed to argue my position to why I believed it was murder. The appropriate thing would be to point me to the policy stating that this is not considered murder on Wikipedia. Once again, I am allowed to argue why I believe this is murder. Automatically going to “you could be sued for this” is most definitely over the top. Especially since this was not on the page itself. I never even actually claimed that those who were charged with murder were “murderers”. Simply stating that he was murdered on a talk page in a content dispute is not enough to claim libel. A simple redirect to a policy is all that is needed. My recommendation for you, Stayfree76, is that you come to this page or the tea house in the future and ask someone else to give a warning if you believe one should be issued. After a few times, you will be able to see from the admins how to properly handle these situations. We’ve already addressed civility but once again, saying fix yourself is never the right way to put it. One way I have seen other admins and done myself is say “please stop doing (insert policy violation here). If you continue to violate (insert broken policy here), you will be reported at the admins noticeboard. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:, murder is not under common law in the United States. it falls under Criminal Law. an excerpt from that wiki is: The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists.. Common Law is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions". The law itself varies by state which makes it difficult for outside parties to understand the complexity of the US legal system. for example, in my state of AZ, i can walk into a bank with a loaded AR 15 sling over my shoulder, but one state over in California, i cant even own it. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

StayFree, this is what I mean by "legal rabbit holes." With all due respect, you have seized on a term I used and completely missed the gravamen of my comment. By "common law jurisdictions" I mean countries which share a legal tradition and broadly similar principles. The actual codification of murder is quite beside the point. I am well aware of the Federal nature of U.S. law. Again, because this is an opinion on obviously disclosed facts, and one which is reasonable to hold, it is not defamatory. On Wikipedia, it is almost always better to couch complaints in terms of BLP rather than any sort of controlling law. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:, i highly suggest you read a dictionary regarding this topic. also per Defamation, Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under United States law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law.[134] Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law.[135] Civil defamation: Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:[136] made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and caused damages to the plaintiff. i feel like im beating a dead horse, but at the same time i think that many non US citizens just do not get how things work in the US and that ignorance causes many misunderstanding about the country as a whole and as a proud american i feel an obligation to ensure accuracy in representation regarding my home.Stayfree76 (talk)

StayFree76, you make some odd assumptions. For the record, I am a U.S. citizen. You seem determined to not take my basic point. On Wikipedia, stick to BLP rather than defamation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

i was not accusing anyone of not being a us citizen. it was a general statement that i see a widespread misunderstanding of US legalities and it is very detrimental the the overall project. all it takes in one person to attempt to litigate against wikimedia (for example) to cause significant changes to the way the site operates. especially given its a high profile case, think about how the people involved might feel when trying to continue their life one way or the other. (this could include [for example] attempting to get financial compensation for a destroyed image and inability to get a job). like i am just trying to protect wikipedia here. i am just some turd that will be dead before 2100, but wikipedia will hopefully be alive forever. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

StayFree76, it's best if we let WMF's legal department handle that sort of thinking. My point is merely this: had you come here saying "this is a BLP violation, and it should stop," then I think you would have met with broad agreement. By saying "this is libel," you have decidedly muddied the waters and are skirting with contravening an important Wikipedia policy. Just food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

tbh man, im with you, that is why i asked if i should have just removed it. next time i will remove the content and post the BLP removal template on their talk page instead of doing the process outside of a known way this is handled (using BLP without citing BLP). at the same time i am still partially concerned about people continuing, even here in this thread, and in talk pages where i started a discussion that you can not use the word murder. one of the editors touts 140,000 wiki edits and is actively on a campaign to get me topic banned. Stayfree76 (talk)

*Neither of these editors has enough experience to be arguing at that article. LBF and SF76, you both need to go find something else to edit for a good long while. Either of you could so easily end up blocked here. Kwitcherbitchin and go do something useful. —valereee (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a long lockdown and no end in sight —valereee (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

im not "bitchin" about anything. i got put here trying to do the right thing. arent we actively having a civil discussion as we speak about one of the wikis in question that i am unable to handle? Stayfree76 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

—valereee, I don’t need enough experience to argue. I was having a debate over content. That’s what we’re here for. There’s no way that I could be easily blocked for seeing if the term murder is appropriate. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, do you think that stayfree76 should have deleted the parts of the talk page where I argued that it should be considered a murder? Is this really violating BLP enough to delete my comments? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer - See this section of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If the person has not been convicted of murder, we're not supposed to use that word to describe the person or the events until a conviction has been secured. The neutral way to go about this is to simply describe the set of events that occurred without referring to those events as anything contentious (i.e. a "murder", "attack", or anything of that sort). Then, simply describe what the offending person (who will be the defendant in the trial) has been charged with, and leave it at that. Do your comments on the article's talk page amount to a BLP violation? BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. Expressing your opinion and saying that you believe the events were murder wasn't a good idea. Now is it a violation where redaction was necessary? That's debatable... I wouldn't have redacted those words from your comments, since if anything, it makes it harder for others to scrutinize the comments and respond accordingly... Again, this is debatable and I'm sure others will disagree. I'll remain neutral on that point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, calling it murder is basically calling Chauvin, a living person, a murderer. That would be libel, as he hasn't been convicted of murder. Yes, it is reasonable to delete libel in the case of living persons. It's not by any means an unreasonable move. —valereee (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, Oshwah, Lima Bean Farmer, and Stayfree76: as a suggestion, is this ongoing discussion about the application of BLP to particular content edits better suited to the article talkpage than here? There's several competing issues in this thread - if possible I'd like to separate the BLP/content one from NLT and civility so we can move the others towards a close. Disagreements welcome. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ill just note for record that i am bowing out (removing myself from the issue). if there is something that is needed from me i will be happy to oblige. :) Stayfree76 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, it's ridiculous that it's here, tbh. More evidence of not enough experience. —valereee (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Euryalus - I believe that this discussion regarding content should continue on the article's talk page, yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:George Floyd is watchlisted by 150+ editors. There is no need for any new editor to start a thread at ANI over anything anyone says on that talk page; if it was that serious, some other editor with more experience would bring it to ANI, or, more likely, one of the many admins who watch the page would take action directly. Similarly, there is no need for any new editor to remove text from any other editor's posts on that page; if it was that serious, some other editor with more experience would remove it. New editors should focus on content, not on the conduct of other editors. Or, at least that's what people have told me :-) Lev!vich 01:12, 18 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 think a user is following me

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

---

There is a user that has an uncanny ability to show up on almost any page I edit, even on pages I create. This is user frequently reverts my edits, often leaving little explanations which frustrates me. I don't know how the wiki rules work exactly and I don't want to accuse anyone for no reason. So can some administrator have a look at this and tell me if I'm "just seeing things" and/or if this is part of normal editing? Can I pm someone the name of the user? ImTheIP (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) ImTheIP, this is known as WikiHounding - you can email me the name of the user and I can take a look if you wish and I'll update this thread accordingly - Special:EmailUser/Ed6767 Ed talk! 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Context:The accused party is Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - both ImTheIP (talk · contribs) and Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs) predominantly edit in the Israel Palestine space, which is controversial and is covered by WP:ARBPIA, violations of which Aroma Stylish has been blocked for in the past [69]. Aroma Stylish has been subject to one AN/3 thread here.

Editor interactions: Interaction timeline

• Prior to 10th July, these users never interacted. The first major edit correlation I can see occured on 17th July on 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There were then further interactions on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. They had a direct and civil discussion at Talk:Palestinian_prisoners_of_Israel#Removal_by_ImTheIP. Entering August, their interactions become suspiciously close together, with oftentimes there being less than 15 mins between edits when prior to this there were hours between them. However, at this time there is not enough evidence for me to say Wikihounding took place, but the closeness of their revisions certainly raises concern. I invite both parties to discuss. Ed talk! 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "following him". As I explained him before, I have over 5,000 articles in my watchlist, most of them related to Jewish and Israeli topics. He is a heavy ARBPIA editor and it's not surprising that ocasionally his edits are challenged by myself and others. However, I usually don't have a problem with his editing, which tends to focus on making texts more concise and tidy. I have an issue when he deletes information without warning in the talk page or edit summary.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd recommend a no fault, two way IBAN as a first step, probably as a discretionary sanction under ARBPIA. We should AGF on both sides---ImTheIP finds the behavior inappropriate and Aroma Stylish doesn't intend their edits to be distressing---but regardless of that, whatever is going on needs to stop before it continues to escalate. The solution it seems is for them to take a break from each other, and a time-limited IBAN seems like it would accomplish that effectively. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ed6767 for investigating. My intent was not to cause grief to a fellow newbie wiki user. As there is no evidence of bad behavior I withdraw my compalint.ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 13 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.

• Follow-up: Aroma Stylish blocked as a sock of יניב הורון. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Technical issue on Eddie891's RfA?

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.

---

• Relevant page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eddie891 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I went to WP:Requests for adminship, the linked text "Voice your opinion on this candidate" linked to a "Co-nomination" section instead of a section one would be expected to voice opinions. Can someone have a look and fix it? Thanks, Eumat114 (Message) 11:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. The template for RFAs links the "voice your opinion" to the 4th section of the RFA. The two co-noms made separate sections/headers, so the discussion section got bumped back to the 6th section. I've updated the link to link directly to the discussion section. only (talk) 11:57, 17 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.

Close challenge

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 User talk:MrX#Ayurveda RfC close there has been considerable push-back against the conclusions of a NAC. There is also a fight going on on the article talk page about the meaning of the close. I would like to request that MrX voluntarily withdraw the NAC and that a panel of uninvolved administrators an uninvolved administrator or a panel of uninvolved administrators evaluate the RfC. If MrX is not willing to do that, I would like to request a closure review.

See Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence and Talk:Ayurveda#A lead paragraph without the whitewashing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As the participant of the RfC, I saw no problem with the original closure, though I had voted for the outright removal of the content in question. While there a number of "support" arguments, there were enough editors who still didnt supported the inclusion of the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific on the "opening sentence" (the RfC question) but the first paragraph. That said, the "no consensus" close was accurate. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• (also participated) I think a review or do-over might be appropriate. The "no consensus" close seems correct to me, but then the closer went and invalidated that with a postscript [70]. Everyone's allowed second thoughts, but in a hotly contested RfC closure they don't help. Currently we are back to heavy polemics (involving things like "no consensus for inclusion doesn't mean it can't be included" by the OP...). Better to have this confidently assessed once and for all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• As I expressed on my talk page, I believe my close of the RfC was proper in all respects. After carefully considering the "pushback" from the involved parties, and after re-reviewing the comments made in the RfC, I am not inclined to withdraw my close. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a close review can occur, and it should include "a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion." I am happy to answer questions about how I arrived at my assessment of consensus. Please ping me if I am needed. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - Range of views were offered but it was ultimately unclear that which view gained the clear WP:CON among dozens of participants. Since a number of issues were raised about every particular set of argument, I consider this to be a valid close. Kraose (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close by admin - WP:BADNAC #2 applies here. FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted. For example, all of those arguing "no sources support 'pseudoscience'" should be tossed in light of the many sources presented (mostly by Guy Macon) supporting usage of that term. All the oppose !votes citing WP:LABEL that don't discuss the very specific part of LABEL discussing "pseudoscience" should be tossed as not policy based. Those oppose !votes citing fringe works (one of them cites the back cover of a fringe work, lol) should also be tossed as not reality based. There is at least one blocked sock whose !vote should be tossed. The closing statement did not address any of this. Once you discount all the no-policy-basis or falsely-claiming-no-sources-exist oppose !votes, I see consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. Barring that, I certainly see consensus for inclusion in the lead. Either way, this consensus is complex and should be assessed by an editor who has been vetted by the community for their ability to assess consensus: an admin more thoroughly. PS: I originally accidentally posted this to X's talk page, where he pointed out that BADNAC isn't policy and hasn't been vetted by the community (true) and that my !vote here didn't address discounting of support votes (also true). There are some support !votes that should be discounted, but in my view not nearly as many. However, that's ultimately up to the closer. This close didn't address weighing of support or oppose !votes; an admin may still close this as no consensus, but at least it'll be closed as no consensus by someone vetted by the community to address consensus. Lev!vich 15:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  As I mentioned on my talk page, I dispute that BADNAC applies to this case, but more importantly, it's not policy. From the top of WP:NAC: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Also, your analysis of the RfC omits any concern about supporters !votes which should be discounted, including the several examples of circular reasoning, and at least six !votes without any reasoning whatsoever. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here is where BADNAC#2 was added. There was no discussion on the talkpage, but there was consensus that WP:NAC is not a guideline.[71] - MrX 🖋 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  BADNAC is part of WP:NAC, "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page". It documents commonly observed conventions and should not be dismissed simply because the closer thinks they know better. The convention documented is "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." The RfC was called by an AE admin to settle a dispute and was controversial. In those circumstances, it required more skill in closing than was demonstrated by a non-admin, and I've outlined the reasons below. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've already shown that it's not a policy or a guideline, and that BADNAC#2 was added by one (admin) editor without any discussion or consensus. I dispute that it's a "commonly observed convention" or that it applies to this situation. - MrX 🖋 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Rexx, it sounds as if you are deprecating MrX's skill because he is not an Admin? I think his skill, experience, and judgment exceeds that of most Admins. Your comment seems gratuitous and baiting. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Every piece of text on Wikipedia is added by one editor. Spartaz needed no prior consensus to make an edit, and edits that are not challenged represent consensus. That consensus has stood for four years. If you don't believe BADNAC#2 is a correct documentation of our accepted practices, try removing it and see how far that gets you. No matter how much you dispute it, it is a commonly observed convention, and it does apply here. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  The text (not the consensus) stood for years because it's not part of policy so no one bothered to remove it. It simply does not have community wide consensus. All the bloviating in the world doesn't change that. If you want it to be a policy or a guideline, you can start an RfC and advertise it on WP:CENT. - MrX 🖋 00:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  On further reflection, I've struck the "by admin" part of my !vote. I agree with Ivan's point below that there are non-admins who could have closed this and who still could, or a panel that might have some admins and some non-admins. I don't have a strong feeling about who should close this or how many closers, but I do think the current close should be overturned. Lev!vich 17:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin Three issues make me belive that this should be overturned. First per BADNAC 2, a no consensus that then needed to be updated is almost definitionally close, so is not eligble for NAC. Also, anything under discrestionary sanctions should be assumed to be controversial and not eligble. Second, MrX did not show any evaluation of strenght of arguments or even any evidence that they had any understanding of the arguments given. Third, MrX immediatly started baiting participants when his judgment was called into question and wikilayering when it was pointed out deficincies in his analysis.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• The close was inappropriate and should be overturned. MrX is not an admin, but is an experienced closer, yet he failed to discern an important theme that became apparent in the discussion and survey, and also failed to sufficiently weight the strengths of the supporting !votes and the weaknesses of the opposing !votes.
  The RfC came about because of a dispute about where the word "pseudoscientific" should be placed in the lead. It was triggered by an edit war on 1 July 2020 and resulted in article protection and a complaint raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 #Roxy the dog under the discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience. El C, who regularly contributes at AE, consequently started the RfC in question "to resolve this dispute". MrX failed to grasp the significance of the RfC in settling a dispute and merely focused on the bald question "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?". I contend that MrX should have taken note of the considerable support, rooted in policy, for the proposition that pseudoscience should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of Ayurveda.
  It has been abundantly clear from long-standing consensus and prior debate RfC July 2015, Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience. The article is in the Category:Pseudoscience and its talk page bears the pseudoscience DS warning. MrX, however, chose to ignore that context stating "I never made a judgment about whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience". Closers are required to take context into account.
  As Ayurveda is undoubtedly a pseudoscience, the policies that apply are WP:PSCI, MOS:LEAD, MOS:BEGIN, WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE – and the support arguments strongly leant on them. Several of the opposers only attacked the mention of pseudoscience at all. These cannot be compliant with Wikipedia policy and should have been discounted. Several of the !votes of the opposers relied on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, effectively denying that sources used in the article for a considerable time were reliable. No evidence such as RSN reports was brought forward to support those denials. Many of the opposers used arguments based on faulty understanding of policies like WP:LABEL (which requires pseudoscientific topics to be described as such), and their arguments were clearly rebutted – see Yoonadue's oppose for an obvious example. MrX failed to recognise sufficiently the strength of the support arguments and the weakness of the oppose arguments.
  In raw numbers there were 63 !votes: 21 supporting inclusion in the first sentence, 15 supporting inclusion in the first paragraph, 16 opposing (presumably inclusion in the first sentence), 10 opposing inclusion anywhere in the lead, and 1 neutral (anywhere in the lead but attributed). I'll be happy to list names on request. None of those supporting inclusion in the first sentence opposed inclusion in the first paragraph. That shows 36 in favour of inclusion in the first paragraph, with strong policy reasons for that. Whereas, 10 of the oppose !votes were arguing against policy, WP:PSCI/MOS:BEGIN and long-standing consensus, and should have been discounted. MrX failed to discern the strength of opinion in favour of inclusion in the first paragraph.
  Most importantly, the close produced no resolution to the underlying dispute, despite that being the purpose of the RfC. Any closer should have been looking carefully for consensus that would bring the dispute to a close: the finding of consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph would have performed that job, and missing that was a deficit in the close. It would be patently ludicrous to have re-run the RfC just to ask the question "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening paragraph?" when we already have an affirmative answer to that in the current RfC. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the close as is Mr. X did fine on it. The original question was:

Should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence

On the page there are votes to:

Include - no preference where
Support in the lead sentence (which is what the question is asking )

Oppose

Oppose for the lead

Mr. X did a great job in evaluating the consensus for the question. No, it wasn't an easy close, and no matter who did it, someone wasn't going to be happy, but that's no reason to overturn. Consensus is accurately reflected for the question being asked. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please observe MOS:INDENTGAP: your formatting broke the thread for screen reader users.

  Fixed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  MrX did not a do a great job, because a closer of an RfC should be looking for consensus beyond the simple question asked. It's a Request for Comments, not a Request for Votes, and it is expected that a closer evaluates the whole of the debate and looks for whatever consensus could be found. In this case, an RfC on a controversial subject, created to settle a dispute, the failure to discern the strength of support for inclusion somewhere in the first paragraph was a fatal flaw. On challenge, he admitted that he saw "a weak consensus to include pseudoscience in the lead", and yet the arguments and numbers do not show that at all (other than the strong support for inclusion in the opening paragraph, which is naturally part of the lead). Almost nobody argued for inclusion just in the lead, and drawing that conclusion demonstrates the weakness of the original close. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin I think this was a procedurally bad close. To claim a consensus we must show that and/or the balance of the quality of arguments clearly favors one side or, if the arguments are of equal weight, that we have a majority sufficient to make a claim of consensus clear via a head count. By the numbers this looks like a near 50/50 split with over 60 editors participating. The closing comments make no mention of the merits of arguments presented by either side so consensus can't be evaluated based on weight of the arguments. Additionally, the closing editor reversed their original close without explanation. All of this leaves open the appearance of a super vote. For these reasons, the controversial nature of the subject matter, and the fact that the 60+ participants should be given the respect of a clearly worded closing argument, I support overturning and requesting an admin-close. Note: I have no prior involvement in this topic. Springee (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Closing statements do not have to explain every detail of the assessment, as long as the closer is willing to explain their reasoning when asked. I have done that. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  If then, as you claim, your close was proper in all respects, do you have a theory as to why the comments on this page are running 2:1 against you? If your closing comments are as good as you claim they are, why not voluntarily step aside, watch as an experienced admin makes closing comments that are pretty much identical to yours, then tell us all "I told you so"?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yeah, [72]  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:be17:2d00:b9d0:9630:fc7:7662 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't need a theory—it's pretty obvious that a brigade of editors involved in the RfC who didn't like the outcome came here to have it overturned. That's not how this process is supposed to work. If it's allowed to work this way, it will be to the detriment to the integrity of the consensus process. - MrX 🖋 12:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you think of anything -- anything at all -- that might explain so many people disagreeing with you other than "I am right and they are all wrong"? The promotion to brigadier was nice, though. Much better than by present position of henchman. --Guy Macon (talk)

I answered your question in my previous comment. I've already said that I don't have an opinion about Ayurveda. It doesn't register on my radar of things I care about. I never used it; I've never read about it (other than the lead of the Wikipedia article and the talk page); I've never discussed it with anyone; and I don't care about it anymore than I do homeopathy or crystal healing. You seem to think that it's fine to overturn a close by a majority vote of editors involved in the RfC. I don't. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn largely per Levivich's evidence that MrX did not adequately evaluate the discussion, particularly in light of many obviously incorrect arguments which were not discounted, and per RexxS' detailed analysis here that the RfC was not about whether or not to describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience but about how to do so. Also, when a closer starts arguing about what pages are and are not best practice or established community expectations, they should take a break from closing things: it's up to the participants to bring those arguments; once you start bringing your own you're supervoting. Given the controversial nature of this topic I support the suggestion to nominate a panel to close, though I normally dislike closing panels. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also: I couldn't care less if closers are admins or not: it's the quality of the close that matters, not the closer's choice of headwear. There are just so many excellent non-admins perfectly capable of analyzing and closing this sort of discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you arrived at the idea that I "supervoted" Ivanvector. Are you suggesting that I had a preferred outcome and tilted the scales in that direction? There is no misunderstanding on my part about what the purpose of the RfC was. I made no claim or implication that it was to determine if Ayurveda is pseudoscience. - MrX 🖋 17:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's the problem in a nutshell, MrX. The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is a settled issue here and in mainstream scientific opinion. By failing to start from that context, you were unable to weigh the strengths of the policies quoted. If Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, then WP:PSCI absolutely paramount; if not it's irrelevant. By ignoring the current context, your close fell foul of the pitfall underpinning WP:GEVAL. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, that is not how the process works. We do no require closers to have intimate knowledge of a subject in order to close an RfC. I also never said that I "ignored the current context". This will make about the fourth time that you have invented things that I supposedly said that I didn't actually say. You should stop that. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Without expressing an opinion on whether you did or did not ignore the context, ignoring the context is about something that you didn't do but should have. You saying nothing in the closing comments about, in the words of RexxS, "The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is a settled issue here and in mainstream scientific opinion" is an easily verifiable fact. Ayurveda being a pseudoscience is an established fact. The reason why I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with RexxS about his "ignored the current context" claim is that I have yet to see a compelling argument that you were supposed to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to write a detailed summary of every argument in the RfC as you seem to think. If, as you claim, Ayurveda is a "settled issue" and "an easily verifiable fact", why would that need to be summarized in the lead anyway? More importantly, someone closing an RfC should not seek out information that is not referenced in the RfC to form their own conclusion. The task of the RfC closer is to summarize the discussion, not right great wrongs or introduce new information. For all the zeal of the editors supporting adding 'pseudoscience' to the lead, a significant number of their argument were weak. Would it help if I listed the names of editors who simply voted, with a separate list of editors who made circular comments like "Support mentioning pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence, considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." or "Support I think that this question should also be asked for the Traditional Chinese Medicine article."?

We could also examine the false claim that there were WP:SPAs who opposed the RfC question. My request to point out the SPAs went unanswered.[73] Or perhaps lwe can look at the claim of canvassing[74] based on two offsite posts that predate the RfC. A closer also has to examine claims like "It is a fact that this article has been included as part of the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for several years without challenge. That settles the question of whether ArbCom regards the subject as pseudoscience." Note that my suggestion to seek clarification (really, verification) on this from WP:ARCA went unanswered. Finally, it's highly noteworthy that most of the people insisting that the RfC close be overturned are WP:INVOLVED. So much so in your case, that you boldly added pseudoscience to the lead after a determination that there was non consensus to do so![75] You have been here a while, so I'm pretty sure you're familiar with WP:NOCON bullet 2. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note on closing panels: they generally only exist to rubber stamp a long analysis that ends with “no consensus”. I haven’t read this discussion and don’t plan on contributing substantively to the review, but I’ve come to the conclusion that closing panels are virtually never appropriate. If people want that; just overturn to no consensus here and be done with it. That will achieve the same outcome in the end and save time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  The last panel close I'm aware of was Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and Wugapodes and Ymblanter went to considerable lengths to extract all of the salient discussion points from the debate, and then render a verdict on all of the consensuses that they could divine. It was not a rubber stamp, nor did it end with "no consensus", so that does contradict your assertions. "Overturn to no consensus" is a flip comment on a topic that has consumed many hours of many Wikipedians' time. As its purpose was to settle a dispute that went to AE, that outcome would actually be a complete waste of time, because the underlying disagreements would remain, and another RfC would be needed to arrive at the conclusion that is apparent from the present debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination) was a panel close that found consensus, following an overturned individual "no consensus" close. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News was another recent panel close that ended with a finding of consensus. Lev!vich 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  All of the examples given above support my claims that it’s simple a long way at arriving at no consensus. Carve outs for specific points within the discussion that the closers say achieve consensus are typically super votes or minor parts and miss the main question, still leading to an overall outcome of the question not being settled. In each of the cases cited, I think the community would have been much better served with one closer, and that the panel closes likely made the outcomes worse not better. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination) explicitly found a consensus to keep. Where is the no consensus there? Also I would ask that you provide specifics about what elements of that close were a supervote. I have no great love of panel closes and can, if someone needs them, provide diffs of evidence of this. However, panel closes have a place. A limited narrow place. Not in this RfC, for instance. However, I think the two panel closes Levivich used are examples of where they do have a place and where they are not, necessarily, supervotes that reflect no consensus closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  The schools RfC from a few years ago was the panel close I consider a super vote that I was specifically thinking of in this instance; it was a while ago and consensus at AfD has arguably shifted since then, but at the time I didn’t think it reflected the discussion. I said “typically” to avoid calling out any specific close and not to target any of the ones cited above, even though I do think they likely would have probably been resolved better with one person rather than multiple. Everyone who participated in those did that at community request and in good faith and they’re certainly valid closes. My opinion is that they’d likely have been better if one person closed them.

  In the case of the R&I AfD if it had just been overturned to keep we would have saved sufficient community time. By overturning for a panel close after a no consensus AfD, that was functionally they only available option to the closers, even if starting fresh. The community was perfectly capable of handling that at the review rather then reopening and requesting a panel. In the process, we lost more time and there were probably a lot more people angsty waiting on the close. We could have skipped that step by ending it at the close review. It was a perfectly good close: it still would have been better if we didn’t have a panel and it had ended before. If a discussion had a close review, that’s already multiple people reading the discussion. There’s no need to add the third step. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you that panel closes are not appropriate for all RfCs. However, the facts of R+I, where individual closings proved divisive and not supported, but the panel close received no real pushback suggest that in extraordinary circumstances panel closes have a place. I think by acknowledging what that place we have a schema against which to judge the need for panel closes. We then then we can say, no the Ayurveda RfC did not and does not need a panel close. A blanket statement that they are always super votes, carve outs of minor parts, or miss the main question makes it harder to explain to people suggesting in good faith that one is necessary here why that maybe isn't the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don’t think R&I got it wrong, but I think the community likely would also have been fine ending it at the review stage, and it probably would have been less taxing on community stamina to not have a panel. I’ve done a few myself, and those experiences have probably formed the way I view them knowing my own faults. When a panel close exists, there’s a desire to have an outcome, and those minor carve outs that reflect bits of the discussion also tend not to have been proposed directly. There’s a risk that anyone latches on to them in the process, but I think I’m at least more likely to latch onto them when there’s an expectation for resolution, which panels tend to have. I suppose my critique is that in most cases, if a panel is required the correct outcome usually would be no consensus on the question asked, which often is part of the result, but panels have a tendency to go beyond that in ways that are normally somewhat minor, but also matter on contentious topics. As a whole, I think we’re better served just not using them, even if they can lead to the right result. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions disagreeing with the closing summary
When a large number of veteran editors disagree with the closing summary, it may be time to ask someone with more experience to write a new closing summary. This can be done with or without upholding the "no consensus" close. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"I do not believe that you gave sufficient weight to the strength of the support arguments, and that you failed to sufficiently account for the weaknesses of the oppose arguments. I accept that a "no consensus for inclusion in the first sentence" close is within the bounds of a reasonable assessment of the debate. However, I believe that you failed to recognise a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph, which was strongly supported by policy." RexxS 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[76] "I must say at the least I was surprised by the NAC here. I was sort of expecting a panel close from experienced admins followed by a mandatory review. I do agree this was, at the least, an ill-considered close." Alexbrn 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[77] "I believe the closing statement did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion. I see this as an editor who was indecisive and wanted to please both sides. At least a review is needed." - hako9 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[78] "Your close leaves the dispute unsettled, despite the strength of support for inclusion in the opening paragraph, as policy dictates. I do not believe your close sufficiently assessed the case for inclusion in the opening paragraph, and I believe that view will be upheld by uninvolved editors. I'll therefore challenge your close at WP:AN." --RexxS 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[79] "I appreciate MrX's willingness to help with the backlog at ANRFC, but I have to agree with RexxS. In fact, I'd say there was a clear consensus for inclusion in the lead sentence. There was a majority for it, and the minority arguing against it made poor arguments." Crossroads 21:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[80] "Overturn and re-close by admin ... FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted. For example, all of those arguing "no sources support 'pseudoscience'" should be tossed in light of the many sources presented (mostly by Guy Macon) supporting usage of that term. All the oppose !votes citing WP:LABEL that don't discuss the very specific part of LABEL discussing "pseudoscience" should be tossed as not policy based. Those oppose !votes citing fringe works (one of them cites the back cover of a fringe work, lol) should also be tossed as not reality based. There is at least one blocked sock whose !vote should be tossed. The closing statement did not address any of this. Once you discount all the no-policy-basis or falsely-claiming-no-sources-exist oppose !votes, I see consensus for inclusion in the first sentence." Levivich 15:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[81] "I'm the process of challenging the close as I believe a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph was established, but missed by the closer. It might be worth hanging on a day or two while it's discussed at User talk:MrX #Ayurveda RfC close (and potentially at WP:AN)." --RexxS 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[82]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments that interpret the result of the RfC as allowing the word "pseudoscience" in the opening sentence
When different editors in the dispute all read the exact same closing summary and come to different conclusions as to what is allowed and what is forbidden, it may be time to ask someone with more experience to write a new closing summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"Isn't it a huge disservice to our readers that we have to water down the language because it might offend some people's beliefs? ... The rfc is no consensus. Can't we edit? Or is this a kind of a stalemate." hako9 15:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[83] "It is indeed an extreme disappointment, but this is a fairly common occurrence on this website. See, for example, the endless, mind-numbing struggle at Indigenous Aryans to merely include the characterization of WP:FRINGE, despite this being obvious to anyone who has even heard the term 'comparative method' whispered in a neighboring room before. The unfortunate situation is that there exists a huge bloc of people with deeply-held religious and political beliefs which prevent level-headed thinking. Not much else can be said about it." BirdValiant 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[84] "If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence." Guy Macon 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[85] Have you read the comment at 20:26, 16 August 2020 (search for that text to find it)? Please address what it says." -- Johnuniq 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[86] "In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC ...That makes no sense." hako9 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[87]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments that interpret the result of the RfC as forbidding the word "pseudoscience" in the opening sentence
Again, different editors in the dispute all reading the exact same closing summary and come to different conclusions as to what is allowed and what is forbidden. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"No consensus means there was no agreement to put pseudoscience in the first sentence. In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC." Littleolive oil 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[88] @Guy Macon; Instead of misrepresenting the conclusion from the RfC, I think it must be better if you drop WP:STICK in this regard now. I have reverted your edit that goes against the result of the RfC. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil 09:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[89] @Guy Macon; I had to revert your edit because it really goes against the conclusion of the RfC. Earlier there was no consensus for adding "pseudoscience" in the lead either, thus a new consensus will have to be established to add "pseudoscience". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[90]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Apologies for mess which I can't seem to fix on iPad. Fixed.

• • You're right I probably shouldn't have removed the text above. I tried to make a statement but on my phone couldn't post for some reason. (I'm on an old computer now.) I was able though to remove the cmt- probably shouldn't have. Guy please remove a comment which does not support the statement you are making nor was it meant to. I have never said pseudoscience was forbidden anywhere. You are using my statement to make a point which is not an accurate portrayal of what I said. And yeah pretty testy. Harassment does that. For anyone watching and knows what I'm talking about. Cut it out! Littleolive oil (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by administrator (involved). I have very little to add to Levivich's and RexxS' analyses which I endorse. I do however see a clear consensus for it being in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph. That is the original RfC question, and once we disregard numerous invalid comments based on misunderstanding of WP:LABEL or ignoring WP:PSCI, the numbers clearly favor that. The minority's arguments were not stronger such that there is reason to close in accord with them. Support comments that are brief should not be disregarded but should be understood to signal agreement with the arguments made by other support !voters. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m on my phone-computer is being repaired-so apologize if I mess up formatting in any way.

The RfC was asking a very simple question that is, whether the word pseudoscience should be in the first sentence of the article. That’s all that was being asked. Any support or oppose votes that did not answer that question specifically should probably be discounted. The RfC was not asking about sources, about the opening paragraph, or about whether pseudoscience is a word we should use at all. Rexx’s points are well taken in that regard.

I don’t accept the argument which suggests that the RfC decision means pseudoscience can be included in the lead sentence because the close was no consensus for it to be in the lead sentence...ack... which drifts towards the disingenuous and may even be, from an earthy Canadian saying, dragging a bush. The question was and was meant to be simple, in my mind, a clear yes or no should the word pseudoscience be placed in the first sentence of the lead.

My advice is to thank the closer for his considerable work and because there is so much disagreement ask for a re close. We don’t have to blame anyone.

Finally in the past dealing with articles where pseudoscience is being discussed I have experienced off-Wikipedia harassment. This is happening again and it will not scare me away. In fact I didn’t want to get involved in this but I was determined to after and with ongoing harassment. Please feel free to fix any formatting messes.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• That close is bullshit. I know that fans of quackery will be delighted, but int he end ayurveda is pseudoscience, and the policy-based arguments support the inclusion of that fact (suitably framed) in the lead. Exactly as we do for many other forms of pseudomedicine. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. We have a long standing imperative to include pseudoscience. The RfC was not about whether to include in the lead but about whether to include the word in the first sentence of the lead.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And the answer to that question is "there is a consensus to include pseudoscience in the first paragraph, but it does not have to be in the first sentence". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon that is certainly how I read it. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But it would obviously be best placed in the first sentence, front and centre, so that the most important point on the subject is made right away. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by administrator Primarily because the close and the post-close statement could lead to more ambiguity, if not overturned, thus defeating the purpose of the rfc in the first place. The closer should have (ideally, in my opinion) striked their initial close of no consensus. Already on the talk page of the article, one editor had effectively challenged the rfc close (and was rightly reverted back). We will never be able to stop them without a clear close. As for me, MrX's Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead is sufficient for lead describing it as a pseudoscience. A weak consensus (not at all weak if we go by the analysis made above), is still a consensus. A re-close by an admin should put the matter to rest. - hako9 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• overturn and re-close by someone who is qualified to assess the actual discussion, and as per Levivich. Praxidicae (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin Although I supported including "pseudoscientific" (or similar) in the first sentence, I believe that this part of MrX's first statement is a fair summary: "No consensus to mention the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence." (I don't know enough about proving "canvassing" to comment on that part.) I strongly disagree with this statement by MrX: Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead." I agree with everything RexxS wrote in his/their cogent argument above, explaining why this close decision should be overturned and re-closed by a neutral administrator.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:38, 18 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.

Abusive edit summary

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

---

Hello - please could you advise whether this edit summary is considered acceptable? [91] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.32 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's friggin alright with me. It's not offensive or uncivil. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Friggin A! Favonian (talk) 19:53, 18 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.

Appeal to rescind 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.

---

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.

Davidbena's original post follows. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe, hope it's OK, I added a minor tweak in green to prevent people from getting the wrong idea that this request is forumshopping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I, the appealing user, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), am humbly submitting this petition to rescind a Topic ban imposed against me by Ymblanter in the ARBPIA area; imposed here (no. 55), during my last appeal in November of 2019, and which I had mistakenly tried to appeal on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard earlier this year. My wrongly placed topic ban appeal was declined on 13 June 2020 as shown here and where I was asked to submit a new appeal at AN, at a later time. I have duly informed all administrators involved in imposing this ban (Euryalus, Bishonen, Oshwah, Ymblanter), hoping for a fair and equitous resolution of the same.

The reason for this appeal is, first and foremost, because the current Topic ban in the ARBPIA area has been active against me for the duration of a little over one year. I am humbly asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, seeing that many of the articles classified under the ARBPIA template are, in fact, historical places (e.g. Kafr 'Inan, Bayt Nattif, Solomon's Pools, Old City (Jerusalem), etc.). Often, the involvement of these places in the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts are only incidental to their broader historical context and scope, for which I am mostly interested in writing about. If I should ever touch on the Arab-Israeli wars from a historical perspective, I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among fellow contributors. I will also keep foremost in my mind that we, as editors, are to present a fact-based and fact-checked narrative of events, based on reliable sources, and detached from all personal bias and/or taking any side in this area of conflict. I assure my fellow co-editors here that I will not use my role as editor to advocate any advocacy on behalf of any one side in this conflict, but try to be as open-minded as I can to both arguments of the conflict in question (having a healthy respect and goodwill for all peoples who live in and share the same land), stating the facts as neutrally as I possibly can, whenever I am called upon to do so.

I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, and try to present both sides of the argument (if need be), that is to say, neutrality, rather than pursue an advocacy for any one side, just as requested by WP policy.

Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.

DISCLAIMER: a) In those articles where there is an ARBPIA template, I have altogether refrained from editing; b) in those articles where there is not an ARBPIA template, my edits in them have not been about anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only once on a Talk-Page did I vaguely mention it in passing, but when reminded that this topic is "off-limits" to me even in unmarked pages, I quickly desisted.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reading the discussion that imposed your Topic ban, I see it is your second indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban (which you neglected to mention in this appeal), and that after the first one was lifted you returned to the same problematic editing. That's all I need to know. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us a second time, stay topic banned permanently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, briefly looking through some of the previous disputes, I come across this comment from Davidbena in April 2019: "Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon)...". Anyone with that approach to history and to WP:RS shouldn't be allowed within a mile of this subject matter (broadly construed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, first indefinite topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:, I didn't forget the first topic ban on purpose, but thought that it was more important to write about the second, the active topic ban only.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Considering your second ban was imposed just two months after the first one was lifted, and you were advised at AE to include the full timescale of your bans at any AN appeal, I'd say that was exceptionally poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Reading through all this again today, I'm struck by Nableezy's comments below, which I find gracious and constructive. Nableezy is far closer to this subject area and its disputes, and my own judgment is far less well informed, so I'm withdrawing my opposition to the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Erk Does Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fall within said topic ban? (tiptoes away quietly and finally goes back to bed.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, also: Wadi al-Far'a (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a river in the West Bank; Madaba Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a map of the Holy Land showing the "border between Israel and Palestine" and used by both sides in claims of destiny. Guy (help!) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  The articles you mention are not under the general ARBPIA ban, since the ban only applies to articles where the ARBPIA template has been appended on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Davidbena: Err, is it? Your original topic ban was from "all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed". Was there some later discussion clarified it only applied to articles with a template? – Joe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, What do those articles have to do with the IP conflict? Is the Hebrew alphabet now part of the conflict? Is a mosaic from the 6th Century now part of the conflict? No, it's not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [92] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe, look again at the Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. In the section where I was involved in the discussion about this antiquated script, there was no mention whatsoever about "Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade." And, besides, I was unaware of its mention. So, does this mean that if the article New York has a discussion on its Talk-Page about Palestinian nationalists or Israeli nationalists in one of its sections that I am not free to talk about the city of New york in a different section? I do not think that this falls under the definition of "broadly construed."Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, None of those examples have anything to do with the conflict. You're basically stretching it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  You're basically stretching it, i.e., broadly construing it. FWIW, I think Davidbena has attempted to abide by the expectations of the TBAN as he understands them, but it would've been wiser, as BMK points out below, to avoid the area altogether and focus his edits in a completely different area. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but the page is not even "broadly construed" to be part of the conflict, merely because some people mention "nationalism" on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, I think what you are doing is muddying the water. To say that Paleo-Hebrew falls under ARBPIA conflict is ludicrous and knowing that most people will not check the page for content. Really shameful that you'd mention it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A second indefinite ban indicates a serious problem, and the appeal doesn't address that other than to repeat the platitudes that turned out to be false promises last time. Guy (help!) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, I understand your worries, but I wish to remind you that both topic bans against me were the result of my having filed complaints against two other editors, for which I am terribly sorry and I am resolved never again to cast aspersions against them. I am simply asking for an opportunity to prove myself, and, if all else fails, this body can ban me without any right to an appeal.Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, to clarify for others, although Davidbena's topic ban cites ARBPIA and he implies it was placed by Ymblanter, it's a community ban, nothing to do with arbitration, discretionary sanctions or arbitration enforcement as far as I can tell. As to the appeal, the idea that historic (pre-1948) topics are only "incidentally" related to the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply flawed. Everything about the ownership, naming and interpretation of historic sites in Israel–Palestine, from the 20th century right back into prehistory, is highly politicised and contested. Both sides in the contemporary conflict lean heavily on contested historical claims. It's hard to believe that anyone familiar with this area could be genuinely ignorant of this. It's especially hard to be believe Davidbena is, because the previous discussions of his topic ban have mainly concerned his edits to historic topics, and he has recently been involved in PIA-related content disputes in articles like Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and Hebraization of Palestinian place names. In fact, I think some sort of boomerang is in order given that this and other edits above seem to be clear breaches of his topic ban. At the very least, we should clarify/reiterate that he his banned from the Palestine-Israel topic broadly construed, not just articles that happen to have this-or-that template. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Right, the re-imposed topic ban from May 2019 said "Davidbena is again indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed", not "all WP:ARBPIA topics with the template on the talk page."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Even so, where the ARBPIA template does not appear, I have still refrained from discussing ARBPIA topics. Only once did I err in this regard, and quickly ceased from doing it again. All other edits were of a general non-political nature, such as archaeological/historical/geographical issues, without raising the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, if my edits were wrong, I would have expected someone to tell me that I cannot edit pages such as the Onomasticon (Eusebius), although the work has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even though it speaks about towns and villages in the Holy Land.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe, I wish to remind you and others here that in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names it was agreed upon by the contributing editors NOT to add the ARBPIA template, which enabled me to edit that page, where the issues were purely geographical. Only once did I err there, and was quickly reprimanded, and I stopped. When the editors decided that the article belonged to the ARBPIA category it was then that I stopped editing that article altogether.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I can see how the template issue could be an honest misunderstanding (but to reiterate, your TBAN is from the topic and broadly construed, it has nothing to do with the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions). But are you seriously claiming that the archaeology, history and geography of Israel–Palestine is "non-political"? Hebraization of Palestinian place names, for example, is about the replacement of Arabic placenames with Hebrew ones, particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars. An editor like you, who is knowledgeable about this subject, should not need a template to tell you that is directly related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, they are "non-political" when most of the discussions there were strictly about the British governance over the country, before the rise of the State of Israel, and where the article speaks about the naming of sites after the rise of the State, my edits referred only to the ancient history of these sites, preserved in Arabic writing, and which have nothing to do with the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In fact, I stressed the importance of preserving the Old Arabic names since they are a reflection of the Old Hebrew names. What's more, my edits had absolutely nothing to do with the political conflict, but only geography and placenames (except for once when I briefly mentioned the conflict, but quickly deleted it). Again, I would NEVER have edited this page had the ARBPIA template not been removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, please clarify how Paleo-Hebrew is covered under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've answered you above. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, indeed, Joe Roe has answered that query above, but also more substantively in their oppose comment — in an especially eloquent and poignant way, I would add. El_C 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, as I said above, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but it's ludicrous to say that Paleo-Hebrew is part of the IP conflict, even broadly construed. I once mentioned that I can get any page on Wikipedia to be "broadly construed" and we really shouldn't be doing that. Just because one person mentions "nationalism" on the talk page (which may or may not have anything to do with the conflict) we should not be bringing more pages into the conflict area.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, the fact is that the Committee has chosen to widen the scope of ARBPIA, as can be seen in ARBPIA4's Definition of the "area of conflict" onto "primary articles" and "related content." El_C 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, none of those applies to Paleo-Hebrew. I agree with Boing below. IF we are going to sanction someone or not accept an appeal for a TBAN, it should be for a valid TBAN violation, not for some 1 mile stretch of a TBAN topic violation. Can I edit the USA article if I'm TBANNED from the IP conflict since the USA is related to Israel and Israel is associated with the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, I don't disagree that for "related content," the nature of the edits in question must be weighed in relation to ARBPIA, directly. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have opposed previous appeals. For this one, I just want to point out that I'm disappointed that Davidbena was selective in following the advice he was given for this appeal. While he did notify relevant admins, he did not disclose the full sequence of bans and appeals, as suggested. This whitewashes the history here, for anyone who sees this appeal and is unaware. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Good point. I've added the background to the top of this thread. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that shows the second ban was only two months after the first ban was lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the Topic ban came only "two months" after my first Topic ban, but I think it can be fairly appreciated by my fellow co-editors here that a previously banned editor (such as myself) has no way of knowing that if he files a complaint against another editor (say, an editor whom he thought may have acted injudiciously) that the complaint would backfire and he would find himself banned once more. I'm sorry, but this is what happened to me, and I admit that I was haste in my judgment, and that I have since made amends with that same editor; in short, I will not do this again.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd say that both filing that complaint in the first place, and then not expecting any possible backfire, is another example of very poor judgment. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but I just think you don't have the ability to see other viewpoints or to understand why your approach has been so problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear lack of understanding as to WHY the ban was placed in the first place. And no, filing a complaint is NOT a reason for a topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I'm sorry, but if I made amends with the editor against whom I filed a complaint is this not a sign of remorse and understanding where I had been wrong? If this isn't, what is?Davidbena (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per the selective sanction history portrayed by Davidbena and the topic ban violations found by Deepfriedokra and JzG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guerillero, can you clarify the violations? Are you saying that paleo-Hebrew is under ARBPIA violation? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's quite clear from past actions and the comments here that Davidbena really has no intrinsic sense of how he should be editing while under a broadly -construed topic ban. It has always been my opinion that people under such a ban should edit far, far, away from the subject area in question, but that has not been the case here, nor do I see it ever being the case. In fact, what I foresee is an eventual site ban for frittering around the edges of the ban and sticking his toes into the water once too often, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, shalom. If I were to follow your guidelines (which I think are misguided), I would not be able to edit any article (even of geographical/historical/archaeological natures) that has to do with any place in Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but this is NOT what is meant by being "broadly construed." And besides, I have not discussed Israeli-Palestinian issues since my Topic ban, except for once, and I was quickly reprimanded and I stopped.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that is exactly what is meant by broadly construed. See WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. It would be one thing if the Israel–Palestine conflict had nothing to do with history or historical geography, but it does. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  My understanding of "broadly construed" means simply not to bring-up in conversation any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether in articles that have the ARBPIA template or in articles that do not have the ARBPIA template. However, to speak about Israeli food in a Tel-Aviv article is permitted. As for Arab-Israeli political issues, I have refrained from them altogether.Davidbena (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  While I am skeptical of Davidbena's ability to edit neutrally in this area if his TBAN were lifted, and I think he misrepresents his history of edit conflicts in this area, I do suspect his editing around the edges of this area is more a product of his beliefs about what the TBAN entails rather than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope. That said, if a consensus exists that some of these topics lie within the boundaries of "broadly construed", it's probably to his benefit that this expectation is clarified. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, that is incorrect. If someone is TBANNED from the IP conflict, they aren't TBANNED from Israel or Palestine articles. Editing an article that has nothing to do with the conflict is not prohibited and we should not be locking down articles where there is no conflict just for the sake of locking it down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, and very well put. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Great Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia's search function broken for you? I mean the this description of what constitutes topic bans is pretty comprehensive. To help you, I've reproduced it below:
    • The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
      • weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
      • weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
      • weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
      • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
      • discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).
  • Does that answer your questions -- or were your questions just a rhetorical device not actually dependent on answers? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That doesn't answer any of my questions. Most of what you've copied and pasted isn't even relevant to my questions (nobody is asking about categories or project pages, etc.). But feel free to provide answers to my questions if you'd like. I think you'll find answering those questions isn't as easy as copy and pasting from the help file. Same with the issue about Paleo-Hebrew raised in this thread. You'll notice several editors disagree on that one, a sure sign of a tricky issue. (Also I'd suggest removing or collapsing all that irrelevant text you copied and pasted, for the sake of our colleagues.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

      So, basically, the skills of applying general principles to specific examples and understanding general principles through the use of examples, these are difficult for you? There's not much point in trying to help someone who is determined not to understand something, so pardon me if I don't waste both my time and yours in your sealioning. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

      Ad hominem attacks are admissions of defeat. ^Lev!v^ich 02:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't and have never doubted David's good faith here, and I take him at his word on his understanding of the topic ban and what it applied to and I think the arguments above on whether or not such and such page is covered by it should be reframed so it is less about his mistakes in understanding about the ban previously and more about helping him adhere to it in the future. I also dont think it is reasonable to say somebody who is subject to a topic ban about the ARBPIA topic should refrain from editing subjects even remotely related. David is one of our better resources for the Jewish history in Israel/Palestine, he researches thoroughly and when not discussing modern politics is in my honest opinion an affable and pleasant person who is enjoyable to work with. I think perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarity of the extent of the ban, but I do not see what he has been doing as "frittering around the edges". I dont really think Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, as the example contested above, is covered by his ban (though Sir Joseph I also do not think you are helping David even a little bit here). Broadly construed still has limits and I think that example goes quite a bit past those limits. My view on his ban remains unchanged. If David commits to a. not promoting fringe viewpoints regarding the modern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and b. commits to not questioning the motives of those who have opposing viewpoints to him, then I still have no problem with him editing in the topic area. If his ban is not rescinded I would strongly suggest that it be narrowed. David is an asset for a lot of these articles, he brings sources and research that nobody else does. We should let him. Anything that is not directly related to the modern state of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians should be excluded from his ban. Ancient villages, ancient alphabets, ancient anything should be excluded from his ban. nableezy - 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support remove TBAN. This whole ill-conceived mess is a setup for failure. It is too subjective, too vague, too arbitrary, and too confusing. Davidbena has been editing constructively and with forebearance about subjects that may or not have been covered by his topic ban. No one can say for sure whether they are or not.. As Levivich puts it, "without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a narrower ban per Nableezy: something like (a) retaining topic ban on modern-day Palestinian-Israeli conflict, (b) a strict sanction on questioning the motives of other editors or promoting fringe theories in any area, and (c) otherwise permitting editing of Middle Eastern regional topics including ancient Jewish history, geography, etc unrelated to the modern state. (Nableezy, let me know if I've misinterpreted your view). Not normally a supporter of a "last chance" after a previous "last chance" but some of the comments here encouraged a look at Davidbena's wider editing history, and they seem a competent and well-researched editor outside the immediate topic area of modern Israel-Palestine. On that basis the encyclopedia seems better off for their ancient history/geography/cultural contributions, and we should aim to let them carry on in those spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting or narrowing the topic ban, per Nableezy, DFO and Euryalus, and per lack of evidence of continued disruption. To me, whether David properly formatted this appeal by linking to the prior ones, and David's understanding of what "broadly construed" means, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether David has been editing without being disruptive and the answer seems to be yes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban. The editor has shown remorse, and sincerely plans to edit in accordance with the expectations of the community, including the higher expectations in the sensitive area of the WP:ARBPIA area. I find the fact that Nableezy, who could be considered to be on the opposite site of that conflict from the editor who filed this request, has agreed to lifting the topic ban, and has in fact described this editor in a very positive light, a telling sign that Wikipedia only stands to gain from lifting this editor's topic ban. I would like to add that the rather unforgiving approach of some here, is tantamount to a declaration that no topic ban can ever be rescinded, and editors can't ever improve their old ways. I refuse to acquiesce to such a position, and think that any closure of this request should contain a general statement rejecting that position. Likewise I think there is little to be gained from the formalist approach of some here, with undue stress on whether the filing included all relevant details. In this regards I'd like to stress that the filing editor explained that he thought it would be enough to mention the current, active topic ban only, and I find that a convincing explanation. In short, Davidbena is one of our better editors, who after over a year of his topic ban has understood well how he is to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area, and I think it would be more than reasonable to give him the chance to contribute positively to this project in that area as well by rescinding his topic ban at this time. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support narrowing of the Tban per Nableezy and Euryalus, along the lines proposed above. I'm moved by the fact that in this appeal and earlier ones, users who had interacted with him most said that he was capable of working well with others and brought unique skills to the project, but was let down by occasional lapses in judgement and conduct. Let's give him a chance to use those skills to the benefit of the project in a wider range of areas, and perhaps after six months of issue-free editing he could request that the ban be lifted altogether? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow topic ban for now. Per Euryalus. starship.paint (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow, but do not lift based upon what I've seen here. I remain unconvinced that the statements here, which are not radically different from ones made in the past, represent a genuine shift in approach to editing. On the other hand, Nableezy makes a compelling case for why we should not let sanctions to prevent disruption in one area result in blocking valuable contributions by an editor in another area. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, constructive and hard working editor who has realized the error in his past transgressions.--Hippeus (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting of the topic ban. This user has put in his time and clearly improved, so it's time to give him another chance. He has never needed to be sanctioned since the topic ban was imposed. Tikisim (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for narrower ban

SUGGESTED COMPROMISE: If it will make the decision process any easier for administrators and/or contributing editors here, I will agree to remain under my ARBPIA topic ban for another year or two (when I will then be free to submit another appeal), but meanwhile, if agreed upon here by the editors, I will be specifically prohibited from adding content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on all Wikipedia pages - with or without the ARBPIA tag, but I will be ALLOWED to contribute only on geographical issues, or on pre-1948 historical issues, and on archaeological issues in all ARBPIA articles, including the uploading of images to these Wikipedia sites, as may seem fitting to me. Many of my contributions, prior to my ban, have already been to upload images to these pages. In this way, I will continue to behave with restrictions in what concerns the Israeli-Palestinian area of conflict, but contribute in ways that are mutually beneficial to all.Davidbena (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody close this? Last time David appealed it just sat here until being archived. nableezy - 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I'll keep my eye on this and make sure it gets closed properly - feel free to ping me any time it looks like nothing's happening (well, you know what I mean). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. David is a knowledgeable editor and has reflected on his actions and is unlikely to repeat them. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Per Nableezy above, it'd be a shame if this just got archived without outcome because everyone got tired of commenting. Adding a subject header above, and FWIW support Davidbena's suggested compromise as something worth trying. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reposting really just to prevent this archiving from lack of engagement. Can an uninvolved administrator please give this a review and determine if consensus exists for any or no action? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I can support this. It seems like a good compromise to see how things go. And I think it essentially sums up the emerging consensus above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Or support compromise. whichever gains most support. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. I think enough time has passed, Davidbena is conciliatory and should be given a chance.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Above editor is blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support compromise, narrowing, or lifting ban per above. Lev!vich 22:52, 15 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.

Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles

Yesterday I approached S Marshall about draftifying an old article which had been created in 2016 and whose original author is no longer active. In our discussion, it came out that they plan to draftify up to 1200 more similar articles based on a consensus dated from July 2017, which had never actually been implemented.

In August 2017, the community extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months, regardless of whether they went through the AfC process. This means that these 1200 articles, if moved to draftspace, will languish for six months and then be summarily deleted. I don't believe that this was the intent of the July decision.

WP:DRAFTIFY says that moving articles to draft space is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As the changes to draftspace in August 2017 made the July 2017 decision an effective deletion of these articles, I propose that the decision to draftify them all be revisited, and these 1200 articles be dealt with through the deletion process in some form, either individually or en masse.

Here are a couple of options that I can think of:

• Bring back the X2 CSD criteria and use that instead, at least for the obviously uncontroversial ones;
• Tag them all for proposed deletion (ideally with a method to deal with anyone who reverts them all just to make a point);
• Use the AfD process as usual, handling uncontested nominations as expired prods.

Other editors more familiar with the history of the content translation discussions will surely have other ideas, and those are most welcome. – bradv🍁 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless they're notable per the extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months | consensus you've already indicated exists. I'm inclusionist by nature, but I agree, drafting an article should never serve as a backdoor to deletion, that gamesmanship! Delete them unless they're notable. W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wekeepwhatwekill, how and where do we determine whether these are notable? I agree with your standard, but I'm not clear on how we can decide that for 1200 individual articles. – bradv🍁 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Bradv We already have guidelines to show us what's notable. They would work well in all of these cases! :) W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wekeepwhatwekill: To clarify Bradv's question a bit: Suppose we stumble across an old CXT-created article whose topic does not meet our notability guidelines. Bradv is asking how we should delete the article, not whether we should delete the article: should we revive the X2 speedy deletion criterion, use PROD, use AfD, or move them to draft space? Mz7 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mz7 ok....got it. I move for X2 speedy deletion. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv has a point that draftify doesn't mean what it did when this was determined. Also, though I may be being a bit glib since I've admittedly not closely examined that massive old discussion, I don't see the urgency that would necessitate drafti-deleting them en masse. Restrictions have been placed on the content translation tool, and we're just left with these 1200 possibly non-notable and/or sub-par articles. 1200 sounds like a lot until you realize that's the normal number of new articles created every couple days here, so it doesn't seem like an "it's just too much work to handle them individually" issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Alas, it seems that after three years, interest in cleaning up the mess created by the poorly rolled-out content translation tool has diminished considerably. I would like to begin by thanking S Marshall for their continued efforts in this area. However, I also think that this discussion to revisit the 2017 decision to draftify the 1200 articles on that list is reasonable. It seems to me that the simplest solution at this stage is to use WP:PROD in lieu of draftifying. I'm not sure we need to do the PROD-tagging en masse. As I understand it, S Marshall has been going through the list somewhat organically and individually moving them to draft space; I think a reasonable alternative is to simply use WP:PROD instead of moving to draft space. Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bradv, Fixing them is an option. But they can't really be left in mainspace and if can be bothered to fix them then why should we care? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that they can't be left in mainspace, nor do I have an opinion on whether they should. But if the idea here is that we can dump them in draftspace and let people work on them, that won't work. It probably wouldn't have worked in 2017 either, before the G13 expansion, but it definitely won't work now. – bradv🍁 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• This whole backlog attracts a lot of attention from those who want to decide how someone else should fix it. It doesn't get much attention from people who want to muck in and fix it.
  I shan't be using PROD. I've tried, and what happens is, the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD; and that's a set of interactions that makes me tired and demotivated. Mz7 is welcome to PROD them all and then deal with the deproddings.
  Those of you who want to change how I deal with it: please come up with a suggestion that you, personally, are willing to implement. Or else leave it to me, in which case, please just let me do it this way.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD — isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should? It sounds like you are saying you are moving these to draft because you don't want to deal with deleting them through the usual channels, but WP:DRAFTIFY is explicitly not supposed to be used like this. If you're feeling tired and demotivated by this task, take a step back from it; there is no deadline. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have taken a break from it. I didn't edit at all in 2018, and then I came back in 2019 to find that nobody had done any work on the backlog in my absence. The issue is that we're now four years after the WMF's stupidity created this issue in the first place, and there are BLPs among these articles, and they do contain mistranslations. Please, please read the whole discussion with an open mind, reflect on it, and understand the whole problem in context before opining that it's fine to leave these in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should?

Not really. Because in cases like this, the process is so inherently glacial and frustrating that no one wants to do it. So the articles sit, stagnate and basically just cling to the hull of Wikipedia like barnacles. The deletion process, in this case, is actually detrimental to improving the Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• We should take a look at each one, even if only brief, but I can't find a proper list of the 1200 affected articles. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017 is a mixed bag. @S Marshall: if you want help, you have to provide at least the list or affected articles, or for those already moved, drafts. I could probably help, but I NEED a list. Right now you are about to draftify 1200 articles (I assume you haven't draftified all of them yet?) and I have no idea exactly which articles that will be, which is a bit frightening. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sure. I used to work off WP:AN/CXT/PTR, but someone called User:ToThAc decided that list had been superseded by another list in their userspace that I found much harder to work with; so now I'm keeping the list of stuff I haven't looked at yet in my sandbox here.
  I should be clear that I absolutely do not intend to draftify 1200 articles in the next few days. I've been looking at them at a rate of about a dozen a week -- and of those, at least half of them pass my sniff test. When they do, I simply mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant) and then remove it from my list without draftifying. It's only when I'm not completely confident that I speedy-move it to draft space.
  What you're looking for here is software mistranslations. When the WMF deployed that tool, they encouraged people to move articles from one wiki to another. Unfortunately, the way it was deployed encouraged users from foreign-language Wikipedias to use the tool to move articles to en.wiki even when those users didn't speak English. And a lot of the articles were then fixed up into plausible English by people who didn't speak the source language. Unfortunately, this means the algorithm introduced translation errors that nobody has detected yet.
  If you'd like to help, please do start with the BLPs, because I've found some amazing howlers. Feel free to edit that list; the fact that it's in my userspace shouldn't deter you in the slightest.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I see no issues with Blokdijk (en ik begrijp Nederlands), 1 down, 1199 to go. What do you mean with "mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant)"? Like this? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly like that! Thank you. The Terms of Use thing is because translating from one language Wikipedia to another is technically copying within Wikipedia so we have to credit the original authors on the foreign-language wiki for their work. (Strictly speaking there's a lacuna in that procedure, if the foreign-language article gets deleted but we keep ours; the contributors can no longer be identified so we're in breach of our terms of use. It's a rare but not unknown case which I view as an administrative headache rather than an editorial one.)—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unless this discussion reaches consensus on an alternative procedure, I intend to resume my work on this backlog on the basis of the 2017 consensus, which will mean continuing to draftify.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Can you put this on hold for a few days while I think about alternative procedures? I have a reputation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• No problem.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I guess it's unsurprising there haven't been a lot of new ideas here – we have fairly well-established processes for deleting articles, and there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these other than there are a lot of them, and not a lot of people want to work on them.
  At this point I'd suggest adding something along the lines of {{Cleanup translation}} to each of these articles, which will provide two functions: (a) place these articles in a tracking category, and (b) advise the reader that the content needs help. Then, as time permits, we can go through each of these articles and nominate the non-notable ones for AfD. I would be willing to help with this process. @S Marshall and Alexis Jazz: is this a workable plan? – bradv🍁 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, when you say "there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these", I don't really agree with you, and I would respectfully refer you to all the excitement in the discussion that I previously linked. There were a lot of longstanding, respected editors in favour of some drastic, prompt and novel actions, and that's why the community used an edit filter to stop any more of these articles being created, and it's why when I (personally) suggested that we invent a new speedy deletion criterion for these, it gained sufficient consensus to be implemented within a few days. Have you read enough of that discussion to understand why?—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing. From what I can see, there were originally about 3600 articles that needed to be dealt with, and now we're down to 1200. Presumably those aren't the worst offenders, which is why you boldly deprecated the X2 criteria saying it was no longer necessary to speedy-delete these. In the discussion, you yourself objected to draftifying these articles, saying Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. So if we can't speedy them, and we can't draftify them, why can't we enlist the readers help in fixing them up, and AfD them as necessary? What am I missing? – bradv🍁 14:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It boggles the mind that these articles still haven't been tagged as possibly containing faulty translations. That should have been the very first step. – bradv🍁 14:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• You're right to say that there were originally 3,600 and we're down to the last third of them. A lot of the 3,600 were low-hanging fruit, capable of being summarily deleted or promptly removed from the working list. What's left are the edge cases, neither the worst offenders nor the obviously unproblematic; they need to be reviewed by a human. You're also right to say that I thought draftifying them was the wrong call. I'm working with that process now because firstly, that was the consensus, and on Wikipedia the consensus is king even when it's wrong, and secondly, it's an easy way for me to get stuff out of mainspace. If I work the easy way, then there's some prospect of me finishing the job in the next couple of years.
  The problem with AfD is the process. At the time these articles were created, the content translation tool encouraged users to generate machine translations and dump them directly into other-language Wikipedias. If I had a mind, I could do this at the rate of about five or six articles a minute, into any language including ones I don't speak. And people did. The effort involved in AfD is utterly disproportionate. Besides, AfD participants assess for notability and the existence of sources, very few of them have read WP:MACHINETRANSLATION or have the foreign-language fluency necessary to understand why we have that rule. So I send the article to AfD and they go "It's plausible English, there are sources, so you need to go and fix it!" and it all gets thrown back onto my plate, and I'm simply not going to do that any more. You, however, are welcome to go through the list in that way.
  Why can't we enlist readers to help in fixing them up? Well, as I'm sure you know, we don't have that many active editors, and the ones we do have are doing their own volunteer work, much of which is important. This conversation in a highly visible place has led to one (1) volunteer editor checking one (1) article.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: That was just to test the waters..

@Bradv: I like your idea. Do you already know how to tag them? Or do I need to figure that out? Once we have them sorted by source language like that, we can enlist the help from other language wikipedias. Adding the {{translated}} template to all talk pages should be a similar job. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Bradv means tagging them with {{cleanup-translation}}, or possibly developing a custom tag for this article category. Have you spent much time on other language Wikipedias? I hope you're able to enlist help from them, but in my experience the culture is very different, and the editors who're willing and able to help with en.wiki translations are all already here.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you spent much time on other language Wikipedias? m:Equals sign parser function template conflicts you see. We first need to get these articles sorted by language. (which could be done with {{Cleanup translation}}) I would be happy to go over the entries that originated from nlwiki and we may find others who are willing to do the same for other languages, but we must categorize the articles first before we can effectively enlist help. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The languages have been partially populated at WP:AN/CXT/PTR so you can probably get most of that information by cross-referencing. Failing that, the tool links to the source article in the edit summary of the first edit. How do you propose to deal with Bradv's initial question about dealing with the ones that don't belong in mainspace?—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Any page created by a computer should not be reviewed by a human before being deleted. You'd think after redirect spam, portal spam, etc., everybody in the community would be on board with the wisdom of "nuke spam on sight" as opposed to "let's go through thousands of semi-automatically-created pages one by one to make sure we don't accidentally delete any precious snowflakes". Draftifying them, which gives 6 months for anyone who wants to to work on them (why doesn't ARS rescue drafts?), seems like a very reasonable compromise position for the remaining batch of borderline computer translations. Lev!vich 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• The trouble there is identifying which ones were created by computer, of course. Some editors used the content translation tool exactly as they were supposed to, translating from a language in which they were fluent, checking the machine translation and turning it into idiomatic English before uploading it. Nowadays I automatically pass any article translated by Rosiestep because I've checked enough of hers that I trust her to have done it right. Likewise Endo99 who was quite focused on biographies of female French athletes. We can't just use a bot to depopulate the list, there's too much good stuff there. A human's got to check each one.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't leave machine translations in mainspace. Jeez. How about moving them to talk space, if draft space isn't right? They should also be noindexed if that's not done automatically for talk space. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by XXeducationexpertXX; repeatedly reverting my edits on my own talk 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.

---

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

See my comment here.

XXeducationexpertXX has been repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, both in adding POV content on a university article they appear to be affiliated with and removing well-supported content on other university articles. Various higher education editors have had to revert this user’s edits recently, myself included, and he/she has continued to engage in edit warring over it despite being told to take it to talk page repeatedly.

XXeducationexpertXX is now engaging in a campaign of repeatedly reverting my edits on my own talk page, along with including personal attacks in the edit summaries. After doing this several times, Only restored my user talk edit and reiterated the policy to XXeducationexpertXX, and then XXeducationexpertXX did it AGAIN by undoing Only’s edit. This all seems to be part of a continuing disruptive editing pattern, and it seems clear to me that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. —Drevolt (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Drevolt, could you provide a few diffs? Ed talk! 00:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ed6767, of course. Sorry I didn’t include them in the initial report.

Reverting edits on my user talk page:

[93]

[94] (as IP user)

[95]

[96]

Repeatedly restoring content removed from the Columbia University page by Contributor321, ElKevbo, and myself, all three of whom asked for this to be brought to the talk page (often just repeating the other editor’s concerns about NPOV and edit warring back to them while ignoring requests to take it to the talk page):

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

[101]

Repeated removal of reliable content from other university pages which other users had to revert, often involving repeated edit warring:

[102]

[103]

[104]

I’d be happy to provide many more diffs if necessary, going through this user’s edit history there is a very long pattern of disruptive editing.—Drevolt (talk) 00:42, 19 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.

Surname problems for Dino Jelusić/Jelusick

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 just tried to request for moving this article about the Croatian music artist Dino Jelusić, must be a proper surname. But there is a concern for this title as an opinion for different surnames, Jelusić and Jelusick, both likely disputed. But since regarding this article of living person, it must be a proper Slavic surname in Croatian.

In all sources were titled "Dino Jelusić", and this surname "Jelusick" (in some sources) had been disputed. It seems likely unverified or controversial status (including YouTube, and other social media platforms). --122.2.99.126 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. I don't see any reason why BLP would apply to a spelling difference. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the case that it must be "a proper Slavic surname in Croatian". If the person has an English-language WP:COMMONNAME, that would take precedence. I don't know if that's the case or not. But, yes, it does seem like a content dispuite, and therefore not appropriate for this board. Please discuss on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Recently, DinoRocker (talk · contribs) moved that page "Dino Jelusick" as a disputed or ambigious title, perhaps Jelusick (sounds like JE-LU-SICH to be pronounced in Croatian), is not part of English title. But also this is the one of these sources titled "Dino Jelusić", mostly in books, news, and videos, but also it would claim "Dino Jelusić" as CRITERIA --122.2.99.126 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute. I don't understand why you haven't joined the discussion on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 19 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.

Vladimir Vladimirov (politician)

To whom it may concern, the page I was trying to create on Wikipedia, based on Vladimir Vladimirov, the governor of Stavropol Krai, has been restricted to administrators at this time. Can I ask you to unlock the access of creation as I am willing to translate the article from Russian to English. Anything would be much appreciated. If you have any concerns, please leave a reply on my talk page. Thanks. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Milenin, I see no indication that the page you mention (linked in the header) is create-protected. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You may not see it this way, but as I am trying to do that, I am unable to create the page. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, it's an edit filter rather than a SALT. I've created Draft:Vladimir Vladimirov (politician) for you to work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus here?

This RfC has been going on for 9 days, and it followed a discussion that went on for 12 days. Many editors have commented and many edits to the disputed part were made. Just when it seemed we can see a consensus at the end, I was informed that there is no consensus there.

I have three questions:

• Is there a consensus there?
• (if yes) How can the consensus be apparent beyond doubt?
• (if no) How can consensus be achieved here?

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC's usually run for 30 days barring WP:SNOW which doesn't seem to apply here. Why do you think this one should be closed after only 9? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case there is no reason to be worried. 30 days is cool.

Any advice on consensus? Because it's not the RfC that worries me, it is the consensus or lack of it. One way I can figure is to wait the RfC out and at the end of 30 days (if the consensus is still not apparent) take the dispute to some mediation mechanism. Did I figure that right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let it run 30 days, let the closer worry about the consensus at that time. A lot can happen in the 21 days remaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ECP on The Bourne Supremacy (film)

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.

---

Athaenara has placed The Bourne Supremacy (film) under ECP, citing "Persistent disruptive editing: Special:Contributions/El_Junglas and assorted anons have been repeatedly targeting one word for, I suppose, amusement" until 26th August.

I believe this to be a poor use of ECP, for the following reasons:

• It doesn't seem to meet any criteria under Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection or Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection
• It is debateable whether Athaenara's version is correct in the first place - the quote being "Get some rest, Pam. You look tired" or Athaenara's Mondegreen version of "Get some rest, babe. You look tired." Scripts and subtitles support "Pam", not "babe". Also, as I point out on the talk page, "babe" is not within Bourne's character, but I accept that's pretty much OR.
• There was not "Persistent disruptive editing":
  • Athaenara made the change from "Pam" to "babe" and was reverted by an IP address here.
  • Athaenara reinstated their change to be reverted by another editor here
  • Athaenara reinstated their version again only for it to be reverted by yet another - different - editor here.
• Athaenara then protected the page here and once again inserted their version directly after here.
• The only "persistent ... editing" is from Athaenara. Fair point that the other editors didn't use edit summaries, but Athaenara should have started talk page discussion before ECP.

After an IP editor brought this up on the talk page, I agreed and reverted back to the "Pam" version. At this point Athaenara joined in the discussion - but not before.

I have asked Athaenara on their talk page to lift protection, but have not had any response - although they have since edited their talk page to reply to another topic, so despite minimal edits, they are present on the project.

In the absence of input from Athaenara, I'm asking if an uninvolved admin could look at the page and decide if this was an appropriate use of protection. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but since the IP edits weren't vandalism or disruptive, but a content dispute, and since the admin was involved in the content dispute, this seems like a clear misuse of admin tools and ECP. Doubly a misuse since their article talkpage contribution confirms they can't find any RS to back up an edit that disputes what the script and subtitles indicate, as well as what most viewers hear (myself included, having just popped it in to check). Plus, ten days? Actual, real disruptive editing reported at RFPP often results in ECP that lasts only a couple of days. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Grandpallama. Admin makes bold edit, reverted by IP, admin reinstates bold edit, reverted by non-EC editor, admin reinstates bold edit again, reverted by another IP, admin protects the page: this is not permitted according to WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, ignoring the talk page message is not permitted by WP:ADMINACCT. I don't know if the admin's edit is correct or not, but that's irrelevant. Lev!vich 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't look like an appropriate use of protection. There are situations in which it's OK to protect a page after reverting but supporting your own version in a content dispute isn't one of them. In addition I've seen the film a number of times and I'm fairly sure it's "Pam". Hut 8.5 20:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the above and have removed the protection. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have my own position on this and have expressed it clearly. I have no quarrel with any of those involved in the discussion here and no inclination to engage in arguments about it. – Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see where you've addressed why you think your edit is correct. I do not see that here, at the article talkpage, or on your own talkpage where you were directly asked, that you have addressed why you thought ECP was an appropriate step despite being involved. Levivich mentioned ADMINACCT already, and I'm inclined to think you should offer an explanation in lieu of editors demanding one. Grandpallama (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. The content issue is moot; Athaenara needs to acknowledge the admin action was inappropriate and INVOLVED, or provide acceptable justification. Then this can be resolved. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens, Grandpallama, Levivich, Hut 8.5, Wugapodes, and Bison X: Page protection isn't my usual wheelhouse. My intention was to protect the page from unregistered anon account editing for what I considered a brief time period (10 days). The main thing I've gathered from the discussion here is that a 1 or 2 day protection which didn't require extended confirmed status would have been considered more appropriate. The ad hoc rituals on dramaboards are not my usual wheelhouse, either. – Athaenara ✉ 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Athaenara, I think the point was that you were involved in a content dispute and used your admin tools to "win", not the length of the page protection. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I just thought the page needed temporary protection from editing by anons, I wasn't trying to "win" anything. – Athaenara ✉ 21:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I see where there was some other IP edits, so I can see why you would protect without checking out this IP edit, so INVOLVED may not really be intentional. But I think what got you here was not responding for 3 days to a request on your talk page to lift protection. Did you see the inquiry on your talk page? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Athaenara had never edited this page previously, and all of their participation was to edit war back in their erroneous content, so the most likely explanation is that they returned because they got a notice they'd been reverted, not because they were watching the page (or had been alerted to do so) for disruptive editing. The only IP participation was to attempt to correct Athaenara's edit. Unless there were egregious BLP violations, no uninvolved admin would agree to ECP on a page because of two IP edits from two different IP editors when one registered editor agreeing with them; I find it difficult to see this as anything other than a textbook example of involvement, and a textbook example of using admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The response here that ad hoc rituals on dramaboards are not my usual wheelhouse largely dismisses the concerns that have been raised; admin accountability is a core expectation for any admin. I don't seen any acknowledgment of problematic behavior here. The fact that Athaenara has instead again portrayed their actions as simple temporary protection from editing by anons still sidesteps the central issue that said protection was of their preferred version in a content dispute. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 22 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.

Disruptive editing and vandalism at 2020 China–India skirmishes needs admin attention

There's a silly amount of edit-warring, probable sockpuppetry, and offensive vandalism at 2020 China–India skirmishes. The WP:RFPP request has been sitting idle for some time while new accounts are joining the fray. Could an admin please look at that ASAP? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Article semi-protected for three months and sock blocked. Mz7 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks! For what it’s worth, there were other SPAs that joined in the edit war: Rathin.99 and Karnarcher1989. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Ah, I see. For those accounts, I think because they aren't autoconfirmed yet, I don't think we need to take the time to start an SPI or block them now that the semi-protection is in place. Maybe warn them if they continue disruptively editing, though with any luck they'll just stop editing (or better yet turn into constructive editors...). I'll also note that the 2020 China–India skirmishes article falls under WP:ACDS, so if edit warring becomes a persistent problem, we could consider implementing some kind of WP:1RR restriction on the article on top of the semi-protection, or something like that. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: These new accounts were created to continue the month-long edit warring (cf. this vs this and this in July; this vs this today) against YuukiHirohiko and their now-blocked sock Bobcat1997. Since it's been such a long-term problem involving auto-confirmed and extended confirmed accounts, my thoughts were that it warrants a CU check for the sockmaster(s) as preventative against gaming the system. I'll defer to your judgment though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Just now, a person who reactivated his 20 edits account just for edit warring on this page is continuing the edit war.[105] Given this disruption, I don't think that there has been any evidence of edit warring between ECP users since last 2 months. It would be best if you just ECP it for at least 3 - 6 months and see how it goes. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel,  Done Mz7 (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

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 don't know if this is the right place to ask. There are currently 60 categories in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit which have been emptied and can be speedy deleted as per WP:G6 as "Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past". There is no point in me individually tagging 60 categories. I would appreciate if an admin could delete them. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Salvio 15:24, 21 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.

Rebecca Heineman

• Rebecca Heineman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have applied 3 months' ECP as GamerGate arbitration enforcement on this due to persistent deadnaming. I am reasonably confident that protection is the right choice, but welcome review of the level and duration, and whether this is the right case. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I now had a look. The Gamergate arbitration enforcement clearly applies (I would have chosen BLP myself, but this is not so important). I do not have issues with your chosen duration of the protection, it is clear that the disruption at some level is happening already much longer. However, I do not quite understand the protection level you have chosen. After this edit in June (which prompted the talk page discussion, resulting in a kind of compromise) I do not see a single bad edit by a confirmed user. There were some edits of user Indrian, which were not particularly great, but my understanding is that they accepted the talk page compromise and followed it, and, in any case, they are extended confirmed. The only recent edit by a non-extended-confirmed (but confirmed) user goes in the same direction and must be classified as good. My conclusion is that recent disruption in the article has been caused by IPs. My choice would be semi-protection, and possibly for a longer duration (6 months or a year). I am not going to modify the protection myself, but I have reviewed the situation and provided my opinion as an uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you for that, I will reduce to SPROT. I greatly appreciate the effort you put in there. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, she was just featured in the Netflix series High Score that premiered on Aug 19 (hence the new attention) and though I'd have to go and look, I know "Becky Heineman") was named in it, and her story there includes her trans nature, I am pretty sure it didn't mention her birth name. The nicknames that were removed are actually well sourced and not deadnames, its the birthname that is and the protection seems right. --Masem (t) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually do not understand what the problem is. I mean, the birth name is present in the infobox, but can't appear in the lead? Is that the consensus this measure is meant to uphold? Salvio 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, I missed it being added there. Fixed. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think ECP needs to be elevated. People are still deadnaming her, I just reverted someone on the page. Valeince (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem -- just wanted to chime in with the fact that the High Score series (which I am quite enjoying) does in fact mention her birth name and has a brief interview with her as a young person under that name. I suspect that confluence of factors is driving a lot of this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that (I was watching and trying to document the names in real time to add to episode summaries there so...) So yea, that would self-identification along with other sources that exist so yeah, it's not really a deadname, BUT given the trans nature aspects , GG DS makes sense. --Masem (t) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:Indrian has reverted the deadname back in four times today. I have just warned them, though I'm not going to take any admin action as I'm about to go out and don't like to block and run. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also wary of fully protecting whilst it's in a version that may have BLP concerns. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• If you look at the talk page, Valeince chose to drop their objection and leave the conversation. At that point I largely returned things to where they stood before they got involved. The article has returned to status quo in the body and had a slight change in the infobox to address a concern voiced in talk. The article is currently in line with consensus on the talk page (as voiced by five editors in two discussions two months apart) and appears to be stable at the moment. I fail to see the problem here, as the last edit was not part of any war, but just getting us back to where we were before an anon started disrupting the article last night.Indrian (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• And there are no BLP violations. BLP covers two situations: poorly sourced controversial material and addition of private information not found in secondary sources. The name and her transition are both well documented in sources, and her deadname is also common knowledge and referenced in numerous secondary sources. If I am missing a BLP area, feel free to enlighten me, but the consensus in talk currently is that we do not have a BLP issue. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Finally, for those that don't know, there was a consensus reached on how to handle the name two months ago. It was a contentious discussion, and I fully own up to my part in that, but we ended with a good balance of accuracy, clarity, and respect to the subject. In the last day or so, an anon tried to change the article in a way that went against this consensus. That resulted in the whole thing getting dredged up again. In the last 24 hours, consensus on using the name has strengthened (by which I mean more new participants to the conversation agreed the name should be in the article than people who were opposed) and the one major opponent chose to let it be despite their reservations. I personally don't feel admin action should be undoing that compromise unless consensus shifts. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because I was mentioned here, I still don't have any plans to wade back into an edit war, I will comment to why I left and what my objections are: I left because I was editing with emotion, which isn't helpful in situations like this, not because I agree with anything said in the discussion. I still think this is a BLP issue because I don't believe that you can just go by one documentary to start dead naming someone; I think the individual trans person should explicitly be mentioned in multiple RSs that make it clear they're okay with being mentioned by their old name. I don't see any of that here and still oppose any effort to do so under other circumstances. We should take the BLP's wishes into consideration, and that should be it. Valeince (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to go over all of this -- obviously its better suited to the article talk page -- but I just wanted to inform you because this is the first time this point has come up that its not just one source, that's just the most recent. Here is an interview in which her full original name appears. Here is a video interview that includes footage of one of her games with the credits clearly visible with the original name. Here is another interview with a picture of an article with the original name. I am sure she does not utter it anymore, and I understand why, but she has not insisted that anyone who interviews her pretend it did not exist or that she was not famous (in video game circles) under it. It really is a commonly known and referenced name, hence the lack of a BLP issue. Indrian (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

After rushing in inappropriately (mea culpa) I have come around to Indrian's point of view. The former name does have to be included, I think (she was notable then too) and it doesn't seem like any sort of secret. Still, as discussed on the talk page, I think we can minimize its use. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, currently it is only in once, which satisfies current consensus as hashed out on the talk page. A second reference in the infobox was actually not accurate, and I removed it after a concern was raised that led me to research the nickname deeper (she was always just Burger, never Burger Bill or Burger Becky). This has always been about accuracy and completeness, not some agenda to shame, humiliate, or cast aspersions on her lifestyle or character. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments from Admins for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi, admins,

I like to raise awareness a Request for Comment, the summary is we are planning feature sets related to how reviewers can review with the tool. Some features are relevant to providing features for admins to conduct administrative work (of course, they will require the reviewer was already such admin permissions in that given wiki). We think it's important to do things in the right way and some of the feature might be controversial or not. To err on the conservative side, we want to ask for communities feedback before we go ahead and implement them.

Thank you!

Developer of WikiLoop DoubleCheck xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

Hello all, it looks like there is a bit of a backlog over at WP:RFPP. More than 30 open requests with some being almost a day old. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

We are back to normal now, thanks to everybody involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Review of El C's block of Koavf

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 14 August 2020, El C blocked Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month for a WP:3RR violation. See discussion at User talk:Koavf#August_2020 (permalink)

Today I asked[106] El C to review the block, but they declined to lift it.[107] So I bring it here for review.

There is no disagreement about the fact that Koavf did violate 3RR. This followed an earlier 2-week block of Koavf in July, also by El C.

However, the blocking admin appears to have taken inadequate account of the also-undisputed facts that:

1. This happened Koavf was actively creating the new article Show Pony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which he had tagged from the first edit with {{In use}}
2. The other editor Gagaluv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly ignored the inuse tag, and proceeded to make changes e.g. to the style of referencing while the article was actively being built
3. This caused edit conflicts and disrupted the article's creation
4. Koavf correctly responded by starting a discussion at User talk:Gagaluv1#Please_stop (permalink) ... but Gagaluv1 did not stop.
5. As Koavf continued to edit the article, he reverted the edits by Gagaluv1, so that he could continue to develop his text.

So far as I can see, there is no suggestion that Koavf's edits violated any content policy. However, Gagaluv added unsourced info, and changed the citation style[108] contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Both of those are bad conduct at any time, but they are particularly inappropriate when they disrupting the creation of a new article.

In other words, Gagaluv1 was being a pain, and deserved a WP:TROUT.

However, instead of telling Gagaluv1 to back off and hang on, EL C blocked both editors. This was Gagaluv1's first block, so it was set at 24 hours ... but because Koavf had been blocked before, El C blocked Koavf for 1 month.

This is perverse. I can see how a simple application of the bright-line principle leads to blocks of both editors ... but that simple application has ignored the fact that Koavf was creating content while Gagaluv1 was breaching content policy and disrupting article creation.

The result is that the content creator (Koavf) has been blocked for 31 times as long as the disruptor. This is perverse: any disparity should be the other way around. And the unintended consequence of this block is to create a much greater hazard for a prolific content creator like Koavf than for a disruptor. That's a very bad way to treat content creators.

I hope that in future, Koavf will create any new articles initially in their own userspace, so that their draft can be free from the sort of disruption which Gagaluv1 engaged in. But they shouldn't still be blocked for having been goaded into a 3RR vio as a side effect of actively creating an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good post. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Third-party block appeals are inadmissible and should be speedily closed.. Only the blocked editor may appeal their block. Sandstein 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: I don't see anything to that effect at WP:Blocking policy#Unblock_requests. What have I missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's in WP:UNBLOCK, but that's only a guideline. However I think this is OK. The OP isn't disputing the block per se, but is querying a disparity between the lengths of the blocks given how the incident unfolded. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks for the link, but a third-party appeal of the length of the block is still a third-party appeal and therefore disallowed. Sandstein 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, our policy correctly implies that an unblock request must be made by the blocked user. The first sentence of WP:BP#Unblocking reads "Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block", and the rest of the section goes on to discuss unblock requests in this context. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) if the blocked user does not appeal the block, there is no dispute that needs resolution and a third-party appeal wastes the community's time; and (2) the possibility of a reformatio in peius or, in our parlance, a boomerang: in reviewing an unblock request, the community may well conclude that a longer block or ban is warranted, and it would be unfair to make a user subject to this risk unless they themselves request community scrutiny of their position. Sandstein 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, an implication isn't enough. If you wish to shut down a well-formatted, well-reasoned, good faith request on the basis of a technicality, you need to give us an ironclad policy quote. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: if there is a consensus to disallow third-party appeals, then the policy should say so explicitly ... but it doesn't say that. If you want to ban them, then WP:RFC is thataway.

  I also strongly disagree with the assertion that if the blocked user does not appeal the block, there is no dispute that needs resolution. A block is not just a personal dispute between two editors, and should not be treated as such. A block is applied on behalf of the community, and should always be open to review by the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid this is another example of where Sandstein is unable to gauge the community and simplistically parses policy without applying context, nuance or IAR. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl and Lepricavark, as noted above, the prohibition of third-party appeals is part of a guideline, WP:UNBLOCK#Appeals by third party. It is binding community consensus. This third-party appeal is invalid and disruptive. The rules apply to all, including the popular and well-connected. Sandstein 08:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  That particular guideline seems to have been added unilaterally with an edit summary that invites any dissenting editor to "feel free to revert." So much for that "binding community consensus." Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I don't have any opinion about the block itself, but I disagree with the suggestion that third parties can't object to blocks. I've had my wrist slapped once or twice for making bad blocks, and upon further consideration, I've reversed them. It's all part of WP:ADMINACCT. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  RoySmith, our guideline mentioned above prohibiting third-party appeals doesn't prevent an editor suggesting to an administrator that they should reconsider a block. That can be helpful, as you write. But it does prevent third parties from requesting review of a block by another admin or the community, as has happened here. An additional reason for this is that in most cases we ask blocked editors to convince us that they understand the reason for the block and that they won't do whatever got them blocked again, see WP:GAB. That is not possible if a third party makes the unblock request. Sandstein 12:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but three 3RR violations in about a month or so — there has to be some consequences to that. El_C 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I can accept the view that there should be some consequences. But the reason I am raising this is that the content creator got a punishment 31 times as harsh that meted out to the disruptor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that content creators are exempt from consequence and should edit war freely even after multiple edit warring warnings and short blocks? Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Praxidicae. My view is that a content creator should not be punished more severely than an editor sets out to disrupt content creation by ignoring an inuse tag and violating content policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Patently absurd non sequitur. What a joke. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The first 3RR block was for one week (partial). The second 3RR block was for 2 weeks (sitewide) — unblocked early. And this third 3RR block was for one month. The first offense 3RR violation on the part of the other party in this third 3RR round was for 24 hours, as is customary for users with a clean block log. Again, all of this within the span of about a month or so. El_C 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable! Has the blocked editor asked for a review of the block? If not, why is an uninvolved third party asking for a review? It seems like the block decision was justified! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have previously issued blocks of differing lengths for parties in a dispute where both violated 3RR where one party has only recently been blocked for the same offence. If an editor repeatedly violates 3RR in a short time period, they should not be surprised that the length of their block escalates, and doubling each time is not unreasonable IMO. However, I do agree that the disparity in length is quite a large one – probably an unfortunate consequence of Koavf's next block being due to be a month based on the doubling principle. I'm not really sure what could be done though – it would not seem right to give Koavf a shorter block given his recent 3RR violations, and a week-long block for a first offence also seems harsh... Number 57 20:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock with time served. Koavf certainly could have handled this better, but I fail to see how it benefits the encyclopedia for us to lose one of our most productive editors for a month because they got carried away reverting problematic edits. This is the problem with rigidly adhering to the model of using escalating blocks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Of the last four four blocks (all for edit warring), that would make it the third early unblock. El_C 21:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ... which is a good indicator that there is a recurring problem with the way this is handled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. The last unblocking admin said they would have indffed rather than impose a 2-week block, but I felt (and still do) that that would have been too harsh. El_C 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's true. But what if Koavf were willing to make a commitment to work on future article drafts in userspace in order to avoid this issue in the future? I don't deny that Koavf's behavior was problematic, but under the circumstances it's hard for me to accept that Koavf deserves to be blocked for a full month. You can still see a thread further up this page in which I protested over having been subjected to treatment that was far worse than Koavf's edit-warring. Barely anyone even acknowledged it. I've grown accustomed to being personally attacked and then having my complaints dismissed or ignored, yet Koavf has to lose a month for edit-warring in spite of the mitigating circumstances. I know that consistency is an unrealistic goal, but sometimes it's hard to accept the disparities. I understand why you initially opted to block for a month, but at this point I believe that Koavf has either learned his lessor or he hasn't. Three more weeks won't make the difference in that regard. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock with time served - In this specific case I don't think Justin is to blame here - Sure he did edit war however the emitting factor here is that he added an inuse tag to the article way before the edit war began therefore indicating he's busy with the article and that no one should edit it until he's done, Gaga ignored that repeatedly so IMHO Gaga is to blame here not Justin. Also Justin went to the talkpage after in the hope of getting Gaga to stop.

Ofcourse if this was a simple edit war then sure a block would be warranted but as I said given the inuse tag etc I can't fault Justin for reverting. –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and unblock - not time served, not because the length is too long (though it was), but the block should be overturned on its merits because Koavf should not have been blocked for this 3RR violation in the first place. Koavf created Show Pony Aug 14 at 14:45 with the {{in use}} tag on it (Special:Permalink/972932978), and then he made a continuous series of edits, up to 15:21 (Special:Diff/972938290). Gagaluv1 made a major edit through the tag at 15:22 (Special:Diff/972938474)... that's just one minute after Koavf's most-recent edit, while the in use tag is on there, and less than 40 minutes after the article was created. And then when Koavf reverted, Gagaluv1 reinstated their edits multiple times. That's bullshit. Editing an article while someone is creating it is really, really poor conduct, almost harassment in my view. We don't need a policy that says, "when an editor creates a new article with the in use tag, don't mess with it while they're actively editing it". This is such a clear example of Koavf being in the right and Gagaluv1 being in the wrong, that I really can't believe anyone can fail to see how egregiously one-sided this particular edit war was. If anything, Gagaluv should have been blocked for a month, and Koavf should have been given some wikilove for putting up with this. Bottom line: unblock him and let him go back to creating articles, which is what he was doing when he was so rudely interrupted by Gagaluv and, sorry to say, followed by C. Lev!vich 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @Levivich. You get to the heart of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis. Once an article goes live, it may be edited. Otherwise, there is the WP:DRAFT space. Editing while an in-use tag is displayed may be discourteous, but it is not an exemption from 3RR. Bottom line: I'm not sure that Koavf is able to observe 3RR, which is what the last three 3RR violations (all taking place within the span of a month or so) demonstrate to me. El_C 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is where I fundamentally disagree with El C, who appears to pay no attention at all to the fact that Gagaluv1 was trampling all over WP:CITEVAR, and thereby disrupting the creation of the article.

El C seems to me to be take a most unhelpfully binary stance on the fact that policy does not explicitly ban editing a page which is tagged with {{in use}}, and thereby discounting it entirely. I really cannot see how the goal of developing content is well-served by El C's discounting of the way that Gagaluv1's persistent violations of WP:CITEVAR disrupted Koavf's creation of content. The effect of El C's approach is to license the sort of disruption that Gagaluv1 engaged in. How does that help the 'pedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd characterize a single edit as a persistent violation of WP:CITEVAR. The first edit, yes, but not the subsequent edits, in which he made use of the list-defined references. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so, Mackensen. There were actually two edits by Gagaluv1 which changed the citatiosn style:

1. 15:22[109]
2. 15:39 [110]

The latter came after the second of Koavf's two requests to Gagaluv1 to stop changing the citation style:

• 15:29[111]
• 15:37[112], explicitly invoking WP:CITEVAR

That's persistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think of {in use} on a freshly created page as sacrosanct. Having someone edit a page you just created while you're still actively editing it with the {in use} tag is like writing in a notebook and having somebody walk up to you and rip the notebook out of your hands and start making changes to what you've written.

Also, I think there's a difference between preventing disruption and enforcing rules. Who was Koavf disrupting? I'd say no one other than a disruptive editor whose disruptive edits Koavf was reverting. It makes all the difference to me that this was a brand new article still actively in the creation process. (By the way, how did the other editor even find this new creation?) Lev!vich 00:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree on its face a one-month block is harsh, but let's poke at this a little. I think the matter of the {{inuse}} tag is something of a red herring. It's neither magic nor a policy exemption. It's typically a warning to other editors that a major refactoring is taking place, so please don't come in and make trivial edits because they'll just get overwritten anyway. I can't say I've seen it used for a new article, especially not for a new article on a recent subject where you might reasonably expect to see other editors making contributions. It's unwiki-like to use it that way. There are plenty of ways to drop a fully-formed article into the article space before others can edit it. The preview button, for example. Draft space. Your sandbox. Justin's been around and he knows all this. Edit-warring with another contributor, making good-faith edits, isn't the way to go about this. He knows that, or he should know that. Coming so recently off another edit-warring block suggests that he hasn't taken this to heart. It's a tough call, but I think El_C is correct, and I think the block should stand. Blocks aren't punitive, after all, they're preventative. In this case, preventing future edit warring by making it clear what the community's expectations are. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  (This is a general thought, and I haven't reviewed anything in this particular case). Two partially contrasting philosophies clash now and again here. One is to block indefinitely, expecting the blocked editor to say "OK, I won't do X anymore" and then get unblocked (and probably re-blocked if they repeat X). Another is to perform escalating blocks, basically saying, if you continue doing X, you will be blocked for increasing lengths of time. As a non-admin and mere observer, I sometimes wish WP made up its mind which notion should prevail, or in which specific cases which of these 'policies' apply. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I disagree with Mackensen's description of Gagaluv1's edits as good faith.

Koavf twice asked Gagaluv1 to stop changing the citation style

• 15:29[113]
• 15:37[114], explicitky invoking WP:CITEVAR

Despite that, Gagaluv1 proceeded to chnage the citation style again:

1. 15:39 [115]

Where's the good faith in that?

And where is the good faith in Gagaluv1's decision to ignore Koavf's request [116] to wait 45 minutes? What was the huge urgency which justified Gagaluv1's determiatinto isert hemselves into the middle of another editor's conent creation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry, I missed the first edit. Anyway, yes, two minutes after the invocation of CITEVAR he makes a second edit. Did he see the edit invoking CITEVAR before saving his edit? No idea, but that's a short window. I think it's entirely plausible he saved his edit and went to go see why he had more notifications. Yes, I say he was editing in good faith. He said he was changing the citation style to one that editors were familiar with. That's a reasonable thing to say, especially if you've never gotten reverted over citation styles. That he respected the citation style afterwards suggests good faith to me. As far as "insert[ing] themselves into the middle of the another editor's content creation", this is a wiki for heaven's sake. That's what we do around here. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have never liked escalating blocks, but I don't know if we have better options. We have dealt with edit warriors before (sorry Justin, but that's where you are at now), and one option is to put editors on a 1R restriction, or even a 0R. That might work here. Justin asked on his talk page, "what was I supposed to do here?" and I don't know. More better edit summaries, maybe, and warning the other editor. Then again, the other editor got off lightly with their one-day block--when edit summaries such as the one here contain a pretty revolting kind of passive-aggressive goading. I see now that I have warned that editor before, and they responded in a pretty similar manner, and I wasn't the first or the last one to have a problem with them; Justin's post/thread on that talk page is about as much as you can expect from an editor. So I don't have a solution ready here (I see the problem with an early unblock), but I also think that Gagaluv has been getting away with it for quite a while. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Under the circumstances, I probably would not have blocked at all, and in any event the one-month block length is manifestly unreasonable. I am aware that Koavf has far from an unblemished record (to a degree that if anything is understated in this thread)—but that doesn't change the fact that in this specific instance his edits, while not by-the-book, were understandable. Regarding the procedural concern that the blocked user himself hasn't filed this appeal, I think it's obvious from the prior discussion on his talkpage that he would like to see this block shortened; but if anyone thinks the lack of a formal block appeal from Koavf is a serious impediment to resolving this, then Koavf should be advised to file one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Incidentally, since the edits by Gagaluv1 are being extensively discussed, I've notified him of the thread. I know he was pinged near the beginning, but the discussion has moved on from there and I thought he should be aware. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Look, for what it's worth, I like Justin —we have corresponded privately in the past on several occasions, so I trust him enough with my email address, which can be said about few editors— so blocking him again did pain me. But, him continuing to violate 3RR, three times, almost week after week, was not something I felt merited an exemption in this instance, even with all the extenuating circumstances taken into account. El_C 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• And I don't know Koavf at all, except from the noticeboards. I understand your position but I can't agree that the 3RR violation in this particular instance is typical of the genre; as I said, I think the edits were completely understandable in context, and I think the block length here is unconscionable. If this had been an ordinary appeal on the blocked user's talkpage and I were working a shift as the unblock-reviewing admin, I might well have just reversed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Which would be your prerogative. But the context and totality of 3RR being violated so many times during such a brief duration is a problem, I challenge. El_C 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I do not believe we should entertain third party appeals, but since we're here I'll give my perspective. It seems everyone agrees Koavf violated the 3RR. While there may be mitigating circumstances, violating 3RR is blockworthy on its face and El_C explained how the block length was determined by a pretty common rule of thumb. Nothing here seems to suggest the block is in violation of policy which is the only reason I think we should consider third party appeals. If Koavf believes the block was unfair or no longer serves a preventative purpose, they may say so themselves, but I don't think that's something we should figure out absent their input. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Just read Brad's comment about koavf's talk page discussion which I hadn't seen. If Koavf is fine with this proceeding then what I said is moot. I'm pretty neutral on the merits of the actual question. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock I think we're seeing a significant amount of bureaucracy here, especially from certain admins who are detached from community norms. Suggest that (a) Koavf is unblocked and (b) Sandstein is provided with some training to help them understand better this situation and it context, along with Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia policies. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. FWIW, the ‘In Use’ template is not a magic wand, especially with newer users. Koavf may be learning the hard way that they should develop articles in their user space, then launch them to avoid this happening in the future. Sometimes we run into others whose editing style is sharply varied from our own but in article space they are allowed to edit, even disruptively in our own opinion, and Wikipedia generally allows for it. You can be outmaneuvered, or even outvoted. Best to focus on work you do enjoy if someone is vexing you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "He should have sandboxed" doesn't work. Anyone who has ever created an article knows that no matter how much sandboxing you do, on or off wiki, you almost always have to make some edits after you paste the new article into mainspace. The in use template should be respected. Outside of BLP violations or threats of harm or something like that, there is never any reason to edit a page someone else is actively editing with the in use template, or that someone is in the process of actively creating (or as here, both). Lev!vich 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe the ‘In Use’ template should be updated to say explicitly do not edit, etc., instead it says “To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.” And people ignore it and conflicts like this happen. When it happened to me I learned to not bother using that template anymore, and try to do as much as possible before going live. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• amazing how nobody invokes ignore all rules, which this situation is an example of exactly why that exists. rules are not meant to be applied because they're rules but because in most cases they're the rule. what disruption is being prevented here? none? wow, unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.101.2 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Commentary from an RFU regular When I review unblock requests - after verifying that the block is valid, the things I look for are:

• An admission from the editor that they broke the rules
• An explanation from the editor that they now understand the rules
• A plan from the editor on how they intend to comply with the rules going forth.

• I see none of the above in this case.
• Failing that, what is the policy-based argument that the block is invalid? SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: I think it's unhelpful to frame the question as whether a block was invalid. It's much more constructive to ask the positice question of whether a block was appropriate in all the circumstances.

In this case, the relevant policy is at WPWikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, from which I quote the first sentence:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia

When this block is assessed against the policy, we get a very different answer to that found by the blocking admin. We had Koavf building a start-class article, and we had Gagaluv1 basically buggering up the work by getting in the way, even to the extent of twice violating WP:CITEVAR. Koavf responded properly by starting a dialogue, but Gagaluv1 declined Koavf's request wait 45 minutes, and persisted in tweaking the article as it was being built.

The overall situation is very clear: Gagaluv1 was being an unhelpful pain-in-the-neck, goading Koavf. The disruption initiated by Gagaluv1 and sustained by Gagaluv1 led to both editors crossing the 3RR line.

Unfortunately, the blocking admin chose to look only at one aspect of this: the 3RR violations. And on that basis, El C applied an escalating 3RR block.

So the policy-based reason for overturning the block is that it does not support the policy goal quoted above. Its effect was to endorse the uncivil, uncollegiate conduct of Gagaluv1 and thereby to interfere with harmonious working, and to undermine the effort of an editor building encyclopedic content. In other words, poor reasoning has led a well-intentioned admin to impose a block which has actually undermined policy.

I stress that I do not in any way doubt or question El C's good faith. What I do object to is their narrow framing of the issue: their failure to properly take into account the actual goal of blocking policy, and instead to focus only on one detail which is measurable. This is a systemic risk danger with bright-line rules: when applied without considering all the circumstances, they can lead to perverse outcomes, as happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a systemic risk danger with bright-line rules: when applied without considering all the circumstances, they can lead to perverse outcomes, as happened here.

But these are the rules here. There is no argument that Koavf wasn't aware of these rules. If you would like to change the policy on edit warring, WT:EW ( or even WP:VPP ) would be the place to start.

As to the argument about the other editor, I would refer to WP:NOTTHEM from the Guide to appealing blocks. SQL^{Query me!} 13:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: you asked about policy. Then when pointed to the relevant policy, you aren't interested. Pity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why we need to deprecate WP:NOTTHEM. It's become a convenient way of ignoring the full context of an incident. Mitigating factors should always be relevant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain block unless the above criteria quoted by SQL are met, and Koavf agrees to create and complete new articles in his sandbox or draftspace rather than using article-space as a drafting board. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Phooey - there is no reason he should not use "article-space as a drafting board". Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain block - This is a textbook escalating block. The 3RR vio was objective, and the block length is not unreasonable given that there was a 2 week block last month, and El C's defense of the block makes sense, given that 2 out of the last 3 blocks for edit warring were lifted early in favor of a voluntary resolution, only to lead to more violations. BHG arguing that it was unfair for Justin to be blocked 31 times longer than their opponent is a red herring, because it ignores all of this context that justifies the obvious discrepancy. In terms of our norms and standard practices, there's nothing unusual or unfair here. The blocked user is not even offering a basic voluntary resolution, and indeed they did not even appeal the block. The only unusual thing about this situation is that Koavf is a user with 2 million edits and friends users willing to bend over backwards to protect him. Even this kind of third party forced block review, whether or not it is technically allowed, is unheard of. This intractable problem where we endlessly protect "power users" needs to stop. But at this point it's comical, I've been saying that for the past 12 years and it seems we've gotten nowhere. Not even Framgate was enough to break this endless cycle. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I was expecting that someone would try making the ABF claim that I am just defending a friend. The reality is quite the opposite: Koavf and I have got up each others noses for years, and our last encounter was a trainwreck. Far from defending a friend, I am defending someone who I find thoroughly annoying, and who I usually strive to avoid. I hope that Swarm will strike that demonstrably false assertion.
    Far from ignoring the context, my whole reason for opening this review is that the bloc focused only on the easily-measurable issue of the bright line ... and ignored the fact that Koavf's content creation was being disrupted by an editor whose conduct was someone on the spectrum from discourteous to menace.
    So on the two key points which swarm raised, Swarm has managed to entirely invert the reality of my position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation that I am not assuming good faith. I did not accuse you of being Koavf's friend, so there's no need to get defensive. I merely pointed out the reality of the situation, that the only thing that makes this not an uncontentious block is the fact that Koavf is a "power user", and such users have no shortage of people who will go out of their way to defend them, and I have no doubt that you understand exactly what I'm talking about. That has always been the case and I will not apologize for not pretending that this is obvious special treatment that a user is receiving because of their status. Though you do bring up a good point, defenders of power users are not limited to their "friends", so I will gladly amend that wording. Again, I'm not saying anything about you, so don't come after me acting like you're being attacked. Your second point just gets to the basics of edit warring. Per Justin's own defense, the "disruption" was another user trying to edit a live article while he was editing it. He placed an {{In use}} tag and was running into edit conflicts, so yes, I understand where the frustration would have come from, but this is a minor inconvenience at best, not a license to edit war, and certainly not a 3RR exemption, as the blocking admin pointed out. The other user was maybe a bit uncourteous to edit through the tag, but they were clearly editing in good faith and making every effort to engage in good faith discussion when Justin falsely claimed that they were required to stop editing the article, and threatened them if they didn't. {{In use}} does not override WP:BOLD. The context of being frustrated is relevant, however not relevant enough to outweigh the context of a 3RR violation with several recent blocks for the same offense, and certainly not relevant enough to take some extreme measure of forcing an unrequested block review in which objective violations are excused and routine blocks are framed as draconian. It's obviously inaccurate and inappropriate to frame Justin as a victim of a disruptive editing situation. He got into a bit of a spat with another editor, they both violated 3RR, and they both received an appropriate block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, you clearly stated that Koavf is being defended by friends. That is an assumption of bad faith.

You have doubled down on that by assuming that Koavf is being defended because he is a "power user". That too is an assumption of bad faith: per my opening statement, I am defending Koavf because he was an editor creating content who was systematically disrupted, and goaded into one revert too many. The fact that he is a "power user" only makes the response more absurd (blocking a prolific contributor while the mischief-maker gets off with a trivial block), but that a secondary issue. No editor should be so harshly punished for an imperfect response to sustained goading.

Kindly have the decency to own your own words rather than accuse me of fabrication. And please stop assuming bad faith. And don't make bogus allegations then call the replies defensive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (in addition to my !vote above): My observation over the years is that El C's admin actions are extremely well considered, and always designed to support and help Wikipedia and maintain its proper and peaceful function. Further, El C is one of the mildest-mannered (if not the mildest mannered) admins I have ever come across, which is another reason that he does not take action lightly. Secondly, in my opinion we are wasting an enormous amount of time and emotion here second-guessing a block which, as was noted early one, can be appealed by the blocked user (who is an experienced Wikipedian and does not need help) if they so desire. Thirdly, if the blocked user does not wish to appeal the block in accordance with the guidelines posted by SQL above, they can use the time period of their block to expand their newly created article, by using a portion of their talkpage as a drafting space (this would IMO not seem to violate any policy, and I've seen other blocked editors do some variation of this). Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. and my request is not based upon "friendship" with Justin, or him being a "super user". but from the obvious reason that Koafv is not to blame for the edit war. I agree with User:Davey2010 that Justin 1. added an {{in use}} tag to the article, 2. which Gagaluv1 ignored repeatedly, 3. Justin went to the talkpage the hope of getting Gaga to stop, 4. which Gaga ignored repeatedly, so I can't fault Justin for reverting. Also IMHO Gaga is to blame here not Justin. and as User:BrownHairedGirl has pointed out, the content creator (Koavf) has been blocked for 31 times as long as the disruptor. The first case here is that Gaga disrupted an inuse tag. The rest is just consequences of that. If Justin will not be unblocked, I guess the InUse template is useless as protection and if not deleted, should contain info, that its more or less meaningless, except as information that someone is working on a article. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• This rationale is not rooted in edit warring policy. We don't assign "blame", being "right" or being "provoked" is not an excuse. None of what you say invalidates a block for edit warring, and you're also ignoring the already-explained context that led to the discrepancy between block lengths. It's unclear why you're advocating that a serial edit warrior should receive special treatment exempting them from our basic edit warring principles. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block – The best way to deal with repeated 3RR violations is with escalating blocks, and El C is to be commended for making the tough call here. If Koavf wants to be unblocked he can file an unblock request convincing an administrator that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the project, and any admin can unblock. If Koavf returns to further edit warring after this block expires or is appealed, the next block should be longer. – bradv🍁 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see that Koavf has now filed an unblock request. However, it does not address the reason for the block, nor does it provide any assurances that there won't be further edit warring. This would typically receive a response along the lines of {{Decline reason here}}. – bradv🍁 14:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Overturn - per Levivich, BrownHairedGirl's OP, and Dan Koehl. Yeah, it's patently obvious what's wrong here for me too. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

since nobody seems to have taken my last comment into consideration, per the blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" - what damage is being prevented here? No damage was done by the user whose block is requested to be reviewed, in fact, the user blocked was trying to improve the encyclopedia, and the damage was entirely done by the other party. Further, none of the three points under "Blocks should be preventative" are met here - no imminent/continuing damage is or would occur (improvement to articles would occur), no disruptive behavior was made by the blocked editor (in fact, the other editor was the one disrupting), and the other editor was the one not being "productive" or "congenial" by continuing to undo/revert actions after being asked to stop/discuss. There is literally no basis in the blocking policy for this block, and this is entirely the case where ignore all rules (namely ignoring 3rr) applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.101.2 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The block is preventative, not punitive. The editor had been blocked three previous times within the past month, for edit-warring. The block lengths are escalated for preventative purposes, because since the editor did not get the message (or made false promises) with shorter blocks, increasingly longer blocks are designed to drive the message home (i.e., prevent future edit-warring). Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain the block pending a formal appeal - I'll touch here with my two cents if you don't mind hearing the view of some "little editor" of Wikipedia folks.The first and fundamental issue I'm seeing is that the affected editor is not appealing the ban himself.[117] All I'm seeing from them are these words written on their talk page in response to the block: "What are you talking about?", "Are you serious?", "You have to be kidding me?" and so on. I appreciate the fact that BrownHairedGirl took an active position opposing the block [118], but this is not how it suppose to be done. How do you know they even wish to appeal the ban? Therefore a formal, proper appeal should be presented by the editor affected, not handled by the third party on this board (sorry BrownHairedGir). A second less critical issue, but notable to me, is that other administrators are commenting here, somehow undermining and doubting the blocking administrator's decision. Here is why I think this is wrong. You guys (administrators) have a challenging and stressful job to do, and I respect you all, but diminishing each other choices makes your judgments, as a group, to be weak in the view of regular editors, like me. At least this is my impression. Choosing to block somebody, I imagine, is not an easy task to execute and requires courage, firmness and confidence in your own decisions. This should be respected, even if you think that you would have chosen a different path. I consider EI_C to be one of the best administrators from your team, even thou they were not always sympathetic to me[119]. I have no opinion on the decision itself, but I believe the affected user should appeal the ban themselves. This should be reviewed, as usual, as standard, by another (uninvolved) member of the administrative team. Whatever choice that person takes, it should be respected and appreciated as it should be respected and appreciated the decision of the current blocking administrator. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• A core issue behind this block is that there is no effective way of dealing with disruptive editors who are not breaking any clear bright lines. Disruptive edits that aren't vandalism are difficult to deal with, especially on new or obscure pages that have few if any watchers. While there seems to be agreement above that Gagaluv1 was being disruptive, and there is some support for the in use tag, this thread offers no solution as to what course of action Koavf could have taken to solve the dispute aside from unilaterally deciding to IAR 3RR. CMD (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf could have posted a full article rather than one that was 12 words long: [120]. He could have let the perfectly good added infobox stand instead of removing it without explanation with the bullying edit-summary "Rv. Stop.": [121]. He could have respected the in-use tag that Gagaluv1 added [122] rather than edit-warring and reverting his edits [123]. He could have explained his reverts (Gagaluv1 explained his edit [124]) instead of simply reverting with no edit summary: [125]. He could have gone immediately to the article talk page to gain consensus and discuss content instead of edit-warring. He could have stayed off of Gagaluv1's talkpage instead of haranguing him there rather than using articletalk for discussion of content and policy [126]. He could have avoided making more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. He could have AGFed and had a pleasant discussion instead of browbeating. He could have gone to his sandbox, completed his additions to the article as he saw fit in a draft there, and then (making sure he wasn't violating 3RR) copy+pasted that into the live article, whilst explaining his points on article talk. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those address what others are saying above about the block being a lopsided response to a series of disruptive edits, which was the reason behind this AN thread. They also put all the burden on the original editor rather than the disruptive editor, which reinforces the idea that disruption is difficult to deal with. As your examples show the standard called for actions all leave the disruptive edits in place. Many here argue that the block be overturned or reduced due to not accounting for the level of disruption, but the only clear policy being cited is to IAR 3RR. That this thread is here and has as much support as it does shows a difference between policy and what many feel is the correct course of action. CMD (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The two blocks are not equal in length because Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, whereas Koavf had been blocked 22 times already, mainly for edit-warring, and had been blocked three times in the past month for 3RR. Gagaluv1's edits were constructive; many of them may have been made while Koavf had an in-use tag on the article, but Koavf did the same thing -- he edited the article while Gagaluv1's in-use tag was on the article. Gagaluv1 explained at least some of his edits (via edit summary); Koavf did not. Lastly, the way to deal with any editor or edits you disagree with is never to edit-war, but to explain your edits, via edit-summaries and then on article-talk if there is still disagreement. Please read WP:EDITWAR: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, your description is exactly what Gagaluv1 did and has been doing in the past: reverting back to their preferred version, intentionally disrupting article building in the process (removing referenced material). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, both editors were edit-warring, and both editors were blocked. Koafv's block was longer because he had been blocked 22 previous times, mainly for edit-warring, and within the past month he had been blocked three times for edit-warring. Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, so his block was shorter. Please read WP:EDITWAR: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure why a quote from EDITWAR is being directed at me. I explicitly noted twice that the only policy justification being presented to lift the block is IAR. I feel that demonstrates at least some familiarity with the policies and guidelines around edit warring. Perhaps direct the "please read" comments at someone who is arguing for unblocking despite the edit war policy and guidelines? CMD (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Without commenting on the block, let me concentrate on the following aspect. It is clear that different users, even in this thread, perceive {{inuse}} differently. Some think that it should be taken very seriously, and one may edit an article with this template on only for removing copyright or BLP violations. Others think that this is a purely information template and anybody can edit such article in the same way as if the template was not there. I myself had a very bad experience a few years ago, when I created an article with this template on, and another user started editing it, constantly putting me in the edit conflict position (I guess they were using automatic tools). I went to their talk page, to be told that they are not going to mind the template, not for this article, not in the future. I overreacted, and users remembered me this overreaction for a long time, and the user has not even ben warned. None of the positions is currently explicit in the policies. (Well, by default probably the second one would be more policy-based). Would it make sense to go to the WP:VPP and try to get at least some consensus which can be coded in the policies, or it this hopeless?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter, people often game the system by using the in-use tag, especially when they want to circumvent normal editing practices and consensus-building, or when they have someone they disagree with and dislike and want to gain the upper hand. That's one reason there are no hard-and-fast policies about it. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Very dubious. You clearly don't like "in use" for some reason. If it is left on for much too long it can just be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it is being removed by bot after some inactivity period (24h?)--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so sure of that - I just removed one on an article that had not been edited for 4 days, and by the placer for a week. But I'm sure he just forgot. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Seems incredibly obvious that none of those hypothetical examples are applicable here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block as time served a whole month does seem OTT. Why not use a partial block on the article instead? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• About this rule that only the blockee can start a block review request: Who came up with that, and why?—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Time served is reasonable as per NYB. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block - long history of 3RR/edit warring, escalating blocks - why is this user any different from any one else? GiantSnowman 09:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block As already discussed, the circumstances were such that blocking Koavf was unreasonable, if technically permissible under the current policy. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• All too often we see administrators taking action like Wikipedia is some kind of MMO. Editor casts "3RR violation," so admin casts "block." Non-blocked user casts "unblock review," admin casts "invalid thread." I've seen this attitude a lot with El_C, and it was on full display at the last block of Koavf, where they said "I am bound to the supremacy of 3RR in content disputes as an admin enforcing that bright line rule." We've seen time and time again 3RR violations that are not in fact solved by blocks but by open discussion. You can go to ANEW right now and see a couple examples of 3RR violations not ending with a block but the use of judgment to find an appropriate action not requiring sanctions. The point is we should be here, and our actions should be driven by, the goal of building an encyclopedia, not playing the MMO game. Koavf was in the process of creating a new article and ran into a bit of a tangle. The admin should be there to help solve the issue while enabling improvements to continue. El_C, in this case, only got it half right and should unblock. Rules are helpful until they aren't, and with long term, productive editors there is usually a better option than a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Break

Noting that Koavf has now posted an unblock request. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to grant the request, but let's see if a consensus develops on whether to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking based on Koavf's unblock request. The substance of his unblock request violates WP:EDITWAR, which reads "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." He has been advised by Glen, and by experienced editors in this thread, to post an unblock request in line with the criteria laid out by SQL in this thread. For someone who has been blocked 22 times, mainly for edit-warring, and who had already been blocked three times this month for edit-warring, I think that's the minimum that should be required in the unblock request. In my opinion, he should also commit to fully completing an article in sandbox or draftspace before posting it live, as a condition of an early unblock. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• bad blockS.  this 'edit' by user:Gagaluv1 removes properly referenced text that were added by user:Koavf, and re-introduces the {{in use}} that Koafv here removed. In fact, the before mentioned edit by Gagaluv1 is nothing more than a revert to Gagaluv1's previous version (with addition of 2 references, and a track listing). It is bluntly ignoring the {{in use}} tag and in that process overwriting good faith additions by the user who added the {{in use}} (and then removed it). This is beyond disruptive editing by Gagaluv1, this is intentionally hard pushing the information that he wanted in the article, ignoring anything else. This is a behaviour that they keep repeating: on a page was created by Koavf, who introduced a referencing style, Koafv maintained that reference style after Gagaluv1 introduced introduced a new/mixed reference style.   Gagaluv1 bluntly overwrites that reference style (diff followed by diff - hence intentionally moving back again from the original single cite variation to a mixture) and being pointed to that by Koavf (User talk:Gagaluv1#Formatting sources). Gagaluv1 on that article continues to use their preferred style as late as July, unified again by Koavf on August 10.

Maybe Koavf should have expressed this stronger in their reverts and the talkpage post, and this does not necessarily excuse repeated reversals up to 3RR (though, Gagaluv1's edits are clearly disruptive, at least bordering on vandalism), but I do feel that 3RR as sole basis for this block is not justified. Arriving 17 minutes after article creation and performing edits similar to edits that were discussed earlier between these 2 editors, ignoring a {{in use}} intentionally and insisting to do so ... (and note, the only two cases I could find where Gagaluv1 is changing reference styles are on the two pages discussed here). To me, this looks very, very much like picking a fight by Gagaluv1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock. Koavf has now made an unblock request, which means that we can address it here. Their reason for wanting to be unblocked is "The substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies." This is an invalid request because it does not address the reason for the block (3RR), but instead complains about the editing of others (WP:NOTTHEM). Sandstein 12:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock 72.80.58.47 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock The situation presented in BHG's makes it look like the month-long block is overkill, but if you write the events from the perspective of how El_C has explained it, that this is the 3rd 3RR situation that Koavf had been involved with in 3 months, the prior two lifted early on voluntary promises to avoid further 3RR, and then did it again and had yet to explain themselves, and none of the edits fell into 3RRNO, its hard not to support the block. There were absolutely other actions Koavf could have taken when they neared 3RR on the latest case (including backing off at the 2nd revert, seeking help, etc.) Trying to frame it around the unequalness of the blocks for the action is missing the history involved here. --Masem (t) 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking ahead a few steps, I foresee that this thread may wind up reflecting a sharp division of opinions between those (including myself) who think that this block was barely necessary at all and in any event is horribly excessive, and those who think it was justified as a remedy given the multiple 3RR violations. This will raise a meta-question that I remember asking here as far back as 2006 but which AFAIK still does not have a clear answer: If an unblock review thread yields no consensus in either direction, is the proper outcome to leave the block in place (because there is no consensus to unblock), or to unblock (because there is no consensus that the user should remain blocked)? My view is that we should unblock in such a case, which I believe any admin (again including myself) would have the right to do, because unblocked is the default status—but this is probably something we should figure out someday outside the context of a specific instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

NYB, my take on it is that if there is no consensus to unblock, then the block stays in place. The consensus trying to be reached is one of "should this block be lifted?" The onus being no if the block is valid, but should the user be unblocked. With no consensus to unblock, then the status quo would remain. The same would go for something like a IBAN, topic ban etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RickinBaltimore. I'll just add that, in my opinion, when there is no consensus to unblock, any admin can still unblock as a result of a successful unblock request, unless it's a DS or something like that requiring consensus to overturn. Salvio 13:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically, any admin can undo a unilateral action by any other admin which is not backed by consensus. Hence, no consensus should default to unblock as long as there is at least one admin who supports unblocking. You could be pedantic about it and default to no unblock, but then any admin who wants to unblock would be free to do so unilaterally since there is no consensus that they shouldn't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad that this meta-question needs to be addressed as a separate followup discussion. I personally agree that no consensus should default to unblock, but there is currently no policy on that question.

This discussion has also raised several other meta-issues which should be addressed on a policy level, including:

• the status of {{in use}} tags. There are clearly divergent views on their significance.
• the question of treating 3RR and its escalating-block principle as a mathematical formula. I take the view that any possible block should be assessed against all the relevant circumstances, but some editors take a more formulaic approach. That needs clarification.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Here is an idea from a little editor. Why don't you guys consider granting the unblock request and implement a temporary one revert only or %100 revert prohibition instead if there are so many disagreements? For like a month or even three months? I checked Justin's editing history (Justin is his real name, right? - Justinus in Latin = fair :)), and I noticed he is indeed trigger happy and gets into that revert thing quickly. However, he is a valuable contributor. Wouldn't the temporary revert forbiddance prevent the return of that behaviour and make Justin used to not reverting too quickly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Gagaluv1's behavior was rude, harassing, and disruptive, but that doesn't excuse Koavf edit warring. Koavf's history shows that they have not learned alternative means of resolving content disputes and editor conduct issues. - MrX 🖋 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - This article was in pages with incorrect ref formatting, where I frequently work to reduce the backlog, and upon observing the in use tag which clearly says please do not edit this page while this message is displayed, I left it alone, as should have Gagaluv1. Bad block in my opinion. If editor's can't work in peace to produce content without constantly being disrupted, then get rid of the in use tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reduce the block duration to 7-10 days but only if Koavf admits some degree of wrongdoing. IMO, Koavf definitely committed a 3RR violation here and El C was justified in issuing an edit warring block, although the duration was possibly excessive. The presence of 'in use' tag on an article in mainspace does not magically exempt it from the WP:OWN requirements. Users, especially experienced users, should not be using mainspace in lieu of their sandbox. Certainly it would have been extremely annoying for Koavf to see a major edit by another editor appear while he was expanding the new article, but the correct response should still have been to take the matter to the article talk page rather than start reverting. The response by Kovaf in the unblock request template at User talk:Koavf#Please reconsider this block is extremely troubling. There is no hint there of admitting any degree of responsibility in this episode whatsoever: "I was adding content to the encyclopedia, just as I have done for the past 15+ years and that the substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies." Especially given Koavf's extensive block history for edit warring, this attitude is unacceptable. I think that no reduction in the duration of the block should be entertained until Koavf meaninfully admits some wrongdoing here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"...Especially given Koavf's extensive block history..." To be fair to Kovaf, apart from the recent blip in the past month, he has a pretty much clean block log for the past decade, with the majority of those blocks dating 10 to 15 years ago. The current climate must have an impact to even the most seasoned of editors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - at the end of the day, creating new articles, and developing old ones, must logically be what is good for the project. Why punish anyone trying do improve the Wikipedia? Regardless of what happened, a one hour block would have been enough, I see NO logical sense of this long time blocking. Justin had no intention in harming the project, and most probably never had. Why punish someone who is positively wanting to contribute like this? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In probably about 99% of all edit warring situations both sides are absolutely convinced that their intention is to improve the project. The problem is not with the intentions but with the effect of edit wars -- they still need to be prevented. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn/reduce A month is too long. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll ask again: Why can only the blockee request a block review? Who came up with that rule, and on what grounds did they add it? In this context the rule looks like a really terrible one. Borderline abusive.—S Marshall T/C 15:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  What? Is it that you don't know how to find the policy and research yourself? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do know how to do that, and, the policy doesn't say it. It seems to have been added to a subsidiary guideline at some time after I needed to appeal a bad block, but I'm not able to locate an edit with a clear edit summary that explains why and I can't find a consensus in the archives to support it, so I thought I'd ask here where people should know.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know the origin in the written guideline, but I have argued in support of this in the past. As sanctioned editors are the ones directly affected by the imposed sanction, they should retain control over when and how an appeal is made. It's fine if they agree to someone else making an appeal, but their right to craft their own appeal shouldn't be pre-empted by others. (I do think there is a fuzzy area regarding other parties requesting a general review of how a situation was handled overall.) isaacl (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also, when the community reviews a block, we are not just deciding to reduce the time. If the community is asked to review a block, we have the ability to extend the duration or raise it to a CBAN if the circumstances support it. It's not fair to place an editor in that position without their consent. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem I have with this rule is that if, hypothetically, a sysop makes a bad block and the victim quits Wikipedia in disgust, we're not allowed to talk about it. I think all sysop decisions should be reviewable by the community. The risk that an editor might get their block extended doesn't outweigh the community's need to supervise and scrutinize sysops.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, the community remains free to supervise, scrutinize and discuss a questionable block all day long. What it cannot do, absent an appeal by the blocked user, is lift or change the block. That's necessary because, apart from the issues mentioned above, the unblock request is a crucial part of our unblock process (hence why WP:GAB is so long). Through the unblock request, we seek to determine whether the user understands what they're blocked for, and whether they credibly commit not to repeat whatever got them blocked (in this case, violating 3RR). If there is no unblock request, we cannot make this determination. And as to your hypothetical of a user ragequitting after a bad block, that is not the situation at issue here. Even if it were, if a user cannot or will not communicate why their block was mistaken, they are likely unsuited to a collaborative project that requires active communication skills, and there's no reason to believe that an unblock would bring them back. Sandstein 12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Does this mean we distinguish a block review from a discussion about a block? That seems like a very fine point to me; and I'd certainly like to feel that the community was empowered to overturn a bad block on its own initiative, if that was appropriate, even absent an appeal by the victim. As a basic safeguard against misuse of the tools, I feel users shouldn't need standing to start a discussion about an administrative action.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock Basically per Masem. Also, we all have chosen of our own free will to publish on a public internet wiki so can't be surprised that basically anyone can edit anything at anytime, and because of that we have things like 'three revert' or the entire publishing system fails. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding unblocking as the appeal advances, the standards are in the appeal guidelines -- it's unfortunate and a waste the standard appeal was not previously followed on the user talk page, so return it to that talk page for what discussion remains, a good purpose of the regular order is to avoid users becoming AN spectacle. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good point. The 3RR is a rare example of a bright-line rule, and it's old. We had a for-real vote on it in 2004: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Some of us later regretted that, but mostly because of the gaming inherent in a bright-line rule. The point wasn't that two reverts are okay, three is bad, and more than that you're blocked. The point was that revert-warring is harmful to the encyclopedia, you shouldn't do it, and administrators should feel empowered to take the then somewhat drastic step of blocking you if you're doing it.

  There's a related point here that I think some are missing, maybe always missed. Obvious vandalism was always an exception to 3RR, because we assume good faith with people who edit-warring. Edit wars happen between people who have competing visions about content on the encyclopedia but aren't able to sort it out on the talk page. In that environment the editing process has broken down. Blocks are one way to solve that. Page protection is another. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to edit war over content, good faith or no. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why are some editors voting twice? Are we voting separately on the unblock request and on the original block? If so, put me down for unblock for both, for the reasons I stated above. I'm honestly shocked to see so many editors suggest it's ok or nbd to edit through an in use tag. First time in two years here that I've seen that opinion expressed. Never has the divide between content creators and non content creators been so clear to me. FWIW I would support some changes to policies to make clear that editing through the in use and under construction tags is considered disruptive. Hell I think reverting such edits should be added to the list of 3RRNO. Lev!vich 16:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Why are some editors voting twice? For those people who have expressed a bolded opinion twice, it's because the first !vote was regarding the request for a block review, and the second is responding to Koavf's much later unblock request as noted by Newyorkbrad. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I've been here 17 years and this is the first time I've seen the opinion expressed that {{inuse}} was anything other than a polite notice to others, so today is a learning experience for everyone. I'm genuinely interested to hear more about where this idea comes from; I find it hard to square with our other content policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mackensen, I would not take much notice of a claim, at two years, as to knowing more about content creation - it's rather like, well, other common poor behavior on the internet that is denied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nowhere have I claimed to know more about, or anything about, content creation. Lev!vich 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Would other common poor behavior on the internet include strawman and ad hominem arguments? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  It comes from the template message itself: This page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. If it's considered OK to edit through an in use tag, what's the point of the in use tag? Lev!vich 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I am shocked that you are shocked! -:) I have never heard of {{inuse}} being anything other than a courtesy notice, 'courtesy' being the operative word. The tag does not magically override WP:E, WP:OWN and WP:3RR. The moment an article has been posted to mainspace, any editor is allowed to edit it. If you want to introduce policy changes giving the 'in use' and 'under construction' tags the power to suspend WP:OWN, you are welcome to try, but I am pretty sure it's not going to work. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything about overriding OWN or overriding anything :-) Do you think it's OK to edit through an in use tag? Yes or no? I'm saying the answer is no. Do you disagree? I don't believe you disagree. I don't believe anyone thinks it's OK to edit through an in use tag. I really can't wrap my mind around the concept. Can anyone show me an example of this being done, of an editor editing through an in use tag, and nobody complaining about it? I've seen the opposite happen, I've just never before seen someone edit through an in use tag and it be considered acceptable by other editors. Lev!vich 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I am absolutely saying it is permissible to edit through the 'in use' tag although in most cases it is advisable not to do so. The word 'OK' is too amorphous to be used here and does not really mean anything to me. In particular, an edit through the 'in use' tag is never disruptive, just because the tag is there. To say that it is not permissible to edit through the 'in use' tag would be to give the tag the power to suspend the WP:OWN. Personally, I would try to avoid editing through the tag in most cases, but that's just a matter of common courtesy. Even such courtesy should have significant limits. For example, if somebody leaves a clearly inadequate article in mainspace with an 'in use' tag on it, and then just disappears for a couple of days, I would not think much about editing through the tag or even just removing it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  To me, "not ok" means in most cases it is advisable not to do so, so I think we agree. Personally, I would try to avoid editing through the tag in most cases, but that's just a matter of common courtesy is exactly my point: you, me, and everyone else believes not editing through the tag is a matter of common courtesy. Lev!vich 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know. Like I said, there's a large distance between discourtesy and disruption. Plus there may be other reasons to edit through the {{inuse}} tag, and those tags themselves can be abused and used as a form of sharp elbows, to circumvent the process of obtaining consensus for contentious edits first. There is another thread here at WP:AN right now that possibly illustrates this point, although I am not sure if that's what's actually going on there, WP:AN#Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute. As I understand, one of the issues there is that one of the editors involved in the dispute was making significant changes and put an 'under construction' tag on the article section in question while this was happening. Another editor reverted the edit and something close to an edit war followed (I think). In any case, these courtesy tags should certainly be treated as no more than such, and the moment somone removes them or edits through them, the matter should go straight to the article talk page for further discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support reduction to time served. I have a small history with Koavf, most recently helping to mediate a dispute in which he was involved. Koavf's actions here were not appropriate, and a block was appropriate. However, I think that even considering Koavf's history of edit warring (both 3RR violations and violations of other reversion-related policies, like WP:TPEDISPUTE), given the context of the particular edit war that Koavf was in, this block was too long. That said, if Koavf wishes to create a new article without others making changes, userspace is a more prudent choice than mainspace. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Upon further reflection, I suggest an unblock condition: 1RR, all namespaces, all of the time (with the usual exemptions, narrowly construed). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• 3RR is stupid to treat as a bright line. Someone should probably point out the elephant in the room. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, I didn't mean this as any criticism of El C's actions here whatsoever, but rather as a general issue about 3RR, which this case perhaps helps highlight. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The block was clearly valid (Koavf has form including an Arbcom 1RR restriction). However, I think the purpose of the block has been fulfilled so an early unblock would be appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks to El_C who correctly blocked Koavf in an attempt to stop persistent edit warring. However, I ask would El_C please unblock now because this incident is not suitable for strong enforcement due to extreme provocation. I know we shouldn't tell Koavf that it's ok to edit war if you're right (and if he infers that he is totally wrong), but we should not reward a troll with a short block while their target gets a month. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• What about upping the troll's block (trolling is, after all, disruptive editing, and they almost certainly deserved a block for that as well as one for edit warring), but leavinig Koavf's as it is? After 5 years with regular EW blocks, Koavf managed to go for over 9 years without a block, but they seem to have returned to their previous behavior patterns. Since we have evidence that Koavf is capable of changing their behavior for the better, I think it's worthwhile to remind him of that with this current block. If, after some period of time, Koavf comes forward with a real unblock request showing that they understand why they were sanctioned and promising to go back on the wagon, edit-warring-wise, I think that request (as opposed to their pro-forma current one) should be granted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, and Koavf had been blocked for edit-warring twice within the past two months. So the block lengths were S.O.P. and the differential should not be a talking point here. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC); edited 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, if you're going to go to the trouble of bolding a statement you wrote, at least go to the trouble of making sure the statement is factually correct. Lev!vich 01:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed now, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• And BTW, there is no policy which forbds editing through an "In Use" tag, the purpose of which is to ask other editors for their forbearance while changes are being made. Most editors will grant that authomatically, but some will not, for whatever reason. That's rude, perhaps, but it's not a violation of anything, and certainly shouldn't be an excuse for the editor who posted the "In Use" tag to go off the rails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support original block. 3RR is a bright line and {{in use}} isn't - if we don't like that we can change it, but not retrospectively. Also endorse unblock if Koavf agrees to try not to do it again - blocks are preventative so there's no point in keeping it in place if they credibly acknowledge the issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• no useful opinion on block and its validity, but, based on everything I've read in this thread and on Koavf's talk page, I believe unblocking Koavf now is the best move for the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• How so? How is unblocking Koavf at this moment the "best move for the encyclopedia"? In what way that I am not aware of has Koavf taken responsibility for his actions and pledged not to repeat them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Koavf could get back to editing and creating content. Other editors wouldn't continue spending time in this thread and could spend it elsewhere (editing and creating content, e.g.). And I guess you weren't aware of this. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block, and oppose any unblock based on community concerns. However since this is not a cban, I'm fine with a normal unblock. I.E. an admin unblocking if an unblock is requested and the admin feels based on the responses from Justin that it is no longer needed as they understand what they did wrong and are unlikely to repeat it. To be clear, it's imperative Justin understands that if they continue down this wrong route, they are liable to end up blocked for long periods. Their conduct is clearly not acceptable whatever else others have done wrong. Also, while I'm not an admin and so have never dealt with an unblock request, Justin's current request seems to be the sort of common unblock request which will quickly be denied since it focuses on the wrongs of other editors rather than acknowledging their fault and what they will do to try and stop repeats of their misbehaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock I've waited before commenting here because I was affording Justin the opportunity to respond to SQL's criteria above which I believed to be a fair expectation for any admin considering his unblock request. Based on Justin's answer and formal request for unblock I believe the time served is reasonable, even taking into account the previous 3RR violations. His answer clearly outlines his understanding of wrongdoing and any further period block would simply serve to be punitive now. Personally I would be most comfortable if El C also agreed but I am more than happy to unblock based on his latest response. Glen (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Here is Koavf's unblock request:

Per the purely administrative concerns at WP:AN#Review_of_El_C's_block_of_Koavf, there are at least some editors who see a process issue with me not initiating or otherwise assenting to the block review. I appreciate the input of the several editors there who supported me and who correctly noted that I was adding content to the encyclopedia, just as I have done for the past 15+ years and that the substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies. Since this is a unique kind of request, it may be wise to continue any further discussion on that thread. Obviously, I cannot respond there, tho. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing there that can be construed as an "understanding of his wrongdoing". In point of fact, nothing that he says admits to any misdeeds on his part.

The first sentence is about this block review, not about his actions.

The first half of the second sentence points out that he was adding information, "just as I have done for the past 15+ years", which is, of course, irrelevant. Per WP:EW, "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."

The seoncd section of Koavf's first sentence continues to make that argument that he was right, and the other guy was being disruptive -- which may or may not be true, but is still not a valid arguent to justify edit warring.

The third section of the long second sentence throws some more bad behavior of the other editor against the wall to see if it will stick. Koavf argues that the other editor's work as "objectively bad".

In short, at no time in his unblock request does Koavf take responsibility for doing something wrong. He simply contiues to blame it all on the other editor. There is absolutely no justificant in his unblock request for him to be unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, did you read his response linked to in my comment above? As you seem to have completely disregarded it. He clearly states "I will explicitly say that yes, it is the case that I reverted another editor's work more than three times in a 24-hour period on the same article and that the reasons I had for doing so were not some of the narrow exemptions provided by WP:3RRNO." Confused as to why you didn't address that at all. Glen (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen This explanation by Koavf is still missing the "and I should not have done that" bit. Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: I would suggest that unless you can show where Koafv has accepted responsibility for his part of the problem, and has pledged to do his best to avoid edit-warring behavior in the future, you do not unblock his with "time served". Unblocking without that would be -- in my opinion -- saying to Koavf that he can continue to edit as he is, drawing blocks for edit-warring, and he will be able to get off without taking responsibility. That would not be a good thing to tell someone with Koavf's recent block log. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock as time served. He broke the 3RR technicality and recognizes it. He was also goaded into breaking the 3RR technicality by the subpar behaviour of the opposing party.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that Koavf's last block was for two weeks, and "time served" at this moment is only 8 days. I've rarely seen block times go backward like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well the last block may have been for 2 weeks but was lifted after just over 7 days. So I'm not sure if it's clear a month long blocked of which 8 soon to be 9 days served is technically backwards. In terms of percentage time served of the block, yes it's backwards. In terms of actual time served, it's longer even if only barely. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic

Its hard to know what to think in this one. I just note that I don’t consider BHG’s appeal is very sound. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Chris.sherlock, "I don't know what's going on but I will badmouth someone who's not even involved, just because.". Reyk YO! 10:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC) lol, that’s not what I said. That user has been revert warring incessantly and El_C blocked him for some time to prevent disruption. BHG seems to believe she knows better than other admins. Perhaps the length of block may need mitigation, but given the number of reverts and general disruption if the editor in question, I tend to favour the judgement of the blocking admin. On balance, it was a good call. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock: I'd just point out that an admin noticeboard is definitely a bad place for you to continue your personal attacks on BHG. I would strongly consider striking those, or they will be removed for you. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Apologies. I have censored my posts, for your edification. I appreciate the, threats in good faith? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock: "lol", but going by your respective histories, it's abundantly clear that hers is more sound than your own, I'm afraid. ——Serial 10:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC) My feelings aren’t hurt, and I love you despite your opinion of me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) This is a good example of why the noticeboards can be so harsh. "I don't have a helpful way of resolving this, but I don't like one of the people involved so I'm going to point that out." Mr Ernie (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Au contraire, I have nothing but love and good feeling towards BHG. Her cataloguing abilities are top-notch. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks, @Mr Ernie. But to be honest, from what I have seen of Chris.sherlock's judgement, I am sadly unsurprised by Chris's comments here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl, I am not that familiar with Chris, but I had a brief look at his talk page and saw he told an editor to "go away" but immediately opened a new thread about him on the page that editor was supposed to keep away from. And just above you can see where Chris simply deleted inappropriate comments that had already been responded to instead of striking them, which is better since it doesn't throw off the context of the replies. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Mr Ernie:, that sort of conduct seems sadly familiar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block Even though IMO El C is very quick to block which does not align with our policy WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE - clearly this editor has not learned their lesson from their many many edit warring blocks. I may have miscounted but it looks like more than 10 different violations for edit warring and one was just one month ago. Once the article is live it no longer belongs to anyone per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bottom line it is a very good block El C. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have a suggestion: reduce the block to 2 weeks from 4. Two reasons: The previous block ended up being a week in length (or so), and there are reasonable mitigating factors in this case that might suggest a slightly different path than escalation to a month from the originally 2-week block the last time. (I have no opinion on the matter myself, just seeing if anyone will go for a middle road.) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Based on the unblock request and Koavf's subsequent comments, and also taking into account the discussion above and on his talkpage, I have reduced the block to "time served" and unblocked on that basis. My detailed rationale as well as my guidance to Koavf can be found at User talk:Koavf#Unblock rationale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Brad: Just wondering, did you discuss this with El C before unblocking, as suggested in policy when overturning another admin's actions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

El C and I both participated at length in the above thread and I fully understood his opinion on what was probably the most extensively discussed block of this entire year. I have also acknowledged his position in the basis and rationale for granting the unblock. There had been no further input either here or on the user talk page for several hours, and the time had come for a decision to be made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wowsers, that was a lot of input from a lot editors, over an edit-warring block. Would take me over an hour, to read everything. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I skimmed it in ten minutes, my personal TL;dr would be "a lot of editors disagree on how literally to take policies on edit warring and blocking, with no consensus to maintain the block leading to a time-served unblock". I'd suggest some effort be made to carve out an exception for 3RR/EW for situations where an editor is actively creating an article and being disrupted (though the rules-cruft/instruction-creep folk might point out that the behavior of editing an in-use page is already disruption/harassment; maybe 3RR/EW shouldn't apply to reverts of disruption/harassment). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Thev 'in use', 'under construction' etc tags are just courtesy notices and have no policy force whatsoever. They don't magically overwrite WP:E and WP:OWN. Editing through such tags is not disruption and not harassment, and the use of such tags can in some circumstances itself be abusive and disruptive. There is no such thing as "article being created" in mainspace. The moment a page has been posted to mainspace, it has been created, and any editor is free to edit it there from that point on. Nobody owns it and WP:OWN applies. Not only that, but NPP and various bot and maintenances taggings often occur shortly after the article has been posted to mainspace. To plaster an 'in use' tag there and tell everybody to bug off for the time being is WP:OWNish and smacks of displaing very sharp elblows. The best practice, especially for experienced editors, should be to use their user space or draft space to prepare an article to some reasonable shape and then post in to mainspace. And not to use mainspace as their sandbox and then get upset when they get interrupted. WP:OWN is sacred, but these 'in use', 'under construction' and the like tags are just courtesy notices for information purposes. Nobody should ever get blocked or sanctioned for disregarding them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:42, 23 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.