Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive333

Review of indefinitely move-protected articles

It used to be somewhat routine to add indefinite move=sysop to vandalized articles, especially prior to the edit filter. This has caused issues with some workflows.

There are around 2500 over 9000! articles like this (quarry:query/54423; quarry:query/54424), however some have been subject to BLP violations and others are typical vandalism targets.

For those where removing move protection entirely is not indicated, is it acceptable to use extended confirmed move-protection here, as an interim step to allowing experienced non-administrators to move these pages as needed? –xeno^talk 23:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Xeno, seems like an acceptable solution. Just noting that is too bad there is no protection level for human-vetted experienced editors other than template editor and sysop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would bet most could be moved to EC without issue, and an experienced admin could likely sift through it pretty fast, as most of the ones that need to stay "Sysop move only" are BLPs. I'm guessing is a quazi poll, so I would support doing so as long as a little filtering took place. Btw, I don't remember ever doing indef move protection, I'm surprised we have that many. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither WP:MOVP nor WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xeno^talk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • While going through things at WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Pre-emptive move protection was largely aimed at prolific move vandals of the time. See also Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 5#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? et al.. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is that list complete? Consider 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, indef sysop protected for Move-protecting all featured articles. Requests for (re)-semi-protection should be brought to WP:RFPP. using TW but doesn't seem to appear on either Quarry (unless I'm missing something)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm Cryptic has mentioned some limitations of the queries at Wikipedia:Request a query#Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. –xeno^talk 02:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is now. I was accidentally excluding pages that weren't edit-protected at all along with ones that were edit-protected sysop. Thank you for the sanity check. —Cryptic 02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks! The numbers sound about right now. I imagine many of those edit-protected sysop are also a problem (many are probably overprotected redirects), but one step at a time I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• It is better to review indefinite sysop-only edit protected pages too. I spend a lot of time cleaning up Special:LintErrors and regularly come across overprotected ancient pages. Last month I had posted a request in this noticeboard that led to unprotection of about 1,400 full protected pages in the project namespace. I have not looked much into full protected pages in other namespaces, but a cursory check of user namespace shows many wrong and obsolete protections. For example User:Kingboyk/monobook.js being under full protection is useless since it can be edited only by Interface Admins. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd not be opposed to a procedural review of every single indefinite protection site-wide (especially those from before ~2013). I recognise that it'd take quite some time, but I'd hazard a guess that at least half of our indefinitely protected articles (whether it be semi or higher) don't actually need it. I've been randomly checking in on indefinitely semi-protected redirects and at a cursory glance, only a few truly need any form of protection (Homosexual, Fart, Guns, GNAA etc). Further, most of these indefinitely protected redirects are there because MediaWiki duplicates protection when a page is moved. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  (#discussion re: fully-protected articles moved below)

• Is there a wikipage with all of these? If not I can download the quarry as wikitext and paste it in userspace. I've found having a table useful for keeping track of the hist-merge backlog so it might be a useful asynchronous coordination tool. I'll probably poke around later today (UTC) and modify some protections if need be. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xeno^talk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I changed User:Xeno/sandbox to a table so that it's sortable and added a field for whether the link has been checked. In the edit summary at Special:Permalink/1020589579 I included the regular expressions for converting the list entries to wikitable entries if that's useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've done a quick spot-check of these pages and many do fall into the category of protection remnants left behind after a page move (effectively doubling our protected pages count). Perhaps it's time to revive the proposal to remove that feature? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  A set with the words "moved to" in the log summary is here: Special:PermanentLink/1020692908 (note newer entries). –xeno^talk 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(continued) lifting full move-protections on articles that were placed long ago

• There is currently a discussion/proposal at the village pump regarding significant changes to the protection scheme for page moves. Shouldn't this review wait until that discussion concludes? Changing the role of protection could make this review moot, or change its focus completely. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xeno^talk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be very clear as proposer, it is only partially so, i.e. there are many cases where more recent protections are problematic. I also think there may be a lack of understanding amongst parties in the conversation that the majority of RMs are closed by non-admins. Vaticidalprophet 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• In general, for pages that are only move protected, where the move protection is sysop only, where the protection is over 10 years old - I'm all for reducing these to semi page protection. Over the last 10 years we've had a lot of antivandalism improvements, including with the edit filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Xeno: I was suggesting doing it explicitly, but indeed that is superfluous as (move) permission is not currently present below autoconfirmed, so yes: just resetting the move-protection level back to '(all users)' (i.e. removing the protection entirely). Perhaps publish the list for a week or so, let any admin that wants to remove a page (either because they downgraded the production, or because they feel it should stand on a specific page) do so first. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've unprotected some of the rather old pre-emptive protections; in looking at large aged sets, here are another 1000 candidates for unprotection: Special:PermanentLink/1020342479. –xeno^talk 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• 2005-2008; 2009-2010; 2010; 2010-2011; 2012-2013; 2013-2015; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019 2019-2020; 2020; 2020-now, unmarked. –xeno^talk 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve unprotected all the unmarked oddities: where the protection was so old it was lost to the log, except for two (without prejudice). –xeno^talk 01:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Unban request from Lavalizard101

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.

---

Lavalizard101 has requested (UTRS appeal #42527) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. They were checkuser-blocked by Bbb23 on 2018-07-08 and their extensive block evasion is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive.

I am requesting an unban of my account. I was banned for repeated sockpuppetry under 3X in October 2020 after being blocked for sockpuppetry back in 2018. All accounts I have ever used in order of usage are: Lavalizard101 (this one); prior to block and the cause of the block: 323van (was used back in January 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); van323dal (was used back in February 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); aarlai (used back in September 2017 for POV pushing agian never connected and I owned up to it when originally requesting unblock); Waterwhale12 (used from February to April 2018 then abandoned a month prior to its block); TruthINJC and TruthINJC2 (both used for vandalism in May 2018); Iceiguana (used in July 2018 for gaming autoconfirmed then creating a one-off hoax article-this was the account that drew attention for being a possible sock of Lapitavenator and where I was found out); after the orginal block for block evasion: TKnifton (used from September 2019 an arbcom request was denied to May 2020 as an attempted quiet return before being blocked); Tjklj11 (used as a second quiet return attemp in October 2020 after a second arbcom request went [at the time] unanswered for a month [note i recieved a respond in december-3 months after i was told it was being considered]) I have shown that I can be a productive member of the Wikipedia editing community via my editing history of Lavalizard101 prior to the sockpuppetry and to an extent, the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion). Since the ban was placed I have been sporadically editing Wikispecies in a similar vein to how my main editing focus here is. If unbanned I would: create and expand articles in palaeontology, replace taxboxes with automatic taxoboxes to make it easier for updating higher classification, expand and update categories on palaeontology articles, etc. and would also go back to recent change patrolling for antivandalism work, commenting on unblock requests if acceptable.

I noted there was a high likelihood their appeal would be rejected, possibly under WP:SNOW, and were they sure they wished this specific request copied over. The response was:

yes but with the added comment that apart from the block evasion the edits were productive with the sockpuppet account

Follow-up comments:

I'd like to respond to the comment about the Sockpuppet number: I am not Lapitavenator, My account Iceiguana13 was originally thought to be a sock of Lapitavenator's but was correctly identified as not being them but being me instead. The tags weren't corrected until I appealed in January 2019 which caused and will possibly continue to cause confusion. Also the User talk:Tknifton is not littered with warnings I got a few warnings and a couple of comments but most of it is from the antivandalism work and recent changes patrolling that I was doing. Also When I say I was editing productively as TKnifton I meant based purely on the edits themselves I agree that behaviourly I was disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking, add a prohibition on further requests for at least one year from today or from the most recent instance of block evasion, whichever comes later. I count 38 sockpuppet accounts strewn between Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, I see multiple years of disruptive editing, and the clincher is the claim that they were contributing productively with Tjklj11 and Tknifton while evading their block; User talk:Tknifton in particular is littered with warnings, not to mention their attempt to mislead us about being a blocked editor. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional Support The last edits by were 6 months ago? If they have managed to stay away for 6 months then I'm OK with giving them another chance. Presumably with a one account restriction. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per WSC. ROPE is a thing, as perhaps is maturity. ——Serial 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional support per WSC and Serial. I don't generally picture myself casting unban support !votes for someone who literally used the username "vandal", but the Wikispecies contribs are productive (see species:Special:Contributions/Lavalizard101 if you don't feel like going and checking yourself) and the vandalism/hoaxing occurred during the then-LTA's adolescence. The hoax attempt does give me serious qualms, and I'd want a close eye kept, but I'm willing to extend some rope to a productive contributor on another project. Vaticidalprophet 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  As an addendum, I would strongly suggest that if Lavalizard101 is unblocked, he not focus on RCP and instead focus on content. We very much do not need another overzealous false-positive-shooting RCP patroller, which he seems to have a history of being, while his Wikispecies contributions make it clear his content edits can be good. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I find a few things in this appeal concerning. Lavalizard101 appears to be blaming Arbcom for their repeated block evasion, which they incorrectly label as "quiet returns". The also seem to be nonchalant about their repeated flaunting of Wikipedia policy when they state "...the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion)". I don't see any real understanding of the extent of their breach of community trust as a result of such extensive socking (and subsequent denials and appeals). This appeal, to my eyes, admits some of the socking but also essentially downplays it as necessary due to Arbcom not responding in the time frame that was acceptable to Lavalizard101. I'm also not keen with their stated intent to return to vandalism fighting, especially the "commenting on unblock requests" bit. If the appeal is granted, I certainly hope that's not a direction they take. I see potential for a future successful appeal, but I don't believe we're there quite yet. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • CheckUser blocks already take so long to be reviewed that they are often declined just because they are waiting so long. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. If there is any behavioral issues, their record will follow them around anyways, and I expect a quick block will follow. It's clear they understand that further shenanigans won't be tolerated. I'm unworried about the lack of proper deference the opposes above note. We don't need people to be deferent, we need people to stop breaking rules and become productive editors. I think this user has the potential to do so. If I'm wrong, blocks are cheap. --Jayron32 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up comments from Lavalizard101 on his talk that he requested be copied here, and my own response given there:

(copy this for others to see) @Vaticidalprophet and Ponyo: re: LTA and admits to some of the socking (made respectively). I am not an LTA and I have admitted to all of the socking that I did. Again I am not Lapitavenator the SPI found me (rightfully) unrelated to them as can be seen in its archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are to the best of my ability to tell not currently an LTA, and there is history of once-LTAs reforming. Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The connection between the accounts was confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive#08 July 2018 but was found to be unrelated to Lapitavenator. Also the talk page for Tknifton is not "littered with warnings", at first there is a complaint about bad reverts, the first speedy deletion is about copyright (citing a source but not attributing it as a source of text) but the other deletion notifications are a redirect left by a page move from the main namespace and two empty categories - these are not indications of disruptive editing. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Addendum: Lavalizard has also agreed to focus on content rather than RCP. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support We should give Lava some rope and AGF. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  We should give all editors rope and AGF. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - an indefinite block is not a permanent block. Editors who show commitment to change behaviour should be given the chance to show that they mean it. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - As others have said, give him some rope. Ultimately if he ends up being disruptive again, he'll be blocked again. Just looking back at his userpage history and blocks on other accounts, he was a teenager when a lot of the disruption happened. Something I'd strongly suggest is that if he intends to work on anti-vandalism, he should go through the WP:CVUA. – Frood (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: The discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion, and consensus is to unblock. We need the checkuser in question to at least give their blessing before doing so. I note that Bbb23 is semi-retired, but has been active at least as recently as yesterday. Hopefully we can get some feedback from them on this. --Jayron32 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Bbb23 is no longer a checkuser. WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural comment - rules require a checkuser to evaluate it, that's on the socking side. Bbb23 can't do that, but does still need to be done (normally it's done fairly early in an AN discussion). In a regular unblock, the blocking admin's POV has to be sought, however that is not a necessary obligation in an AN discussion (it's to stop wheelwarring). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, can someone ping a checkuser to follow up and unblock as needed? I'm not being dragged to ArbCom for doing this wrong, but community consensus seems to be that an unblock is in order. --Jayron32 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You need a CU to give permission to unblock, which is normally done by checking to make sure there is no recent socking. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't already been done, but I no longer have the ability to check whether anyone has checked. This might help: Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • As a checkuser, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. @Jpgordon: and @ST47: in case they see something I don't (I haven't had the tools all that long), but I'm pretty confident in my statement here. I also concur the consensus is to unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I concur, there is no evidence of block evasion within the 90 day timeframe of checkuser. I personally would not unblock this user, but I'm prejudiced, I suppose, by their past behavior, and see no particular reason for our volunteers to waste more time monitoring them. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure. My respected cohorts Yamla, Ponyo, and Jpgordon make a strong case against unblocking. I have not looked at the technical evidence, and trust their analysis (which seems to indicate that there has not been any obvious socking within the last 90 days) entirely. A lot of the argument supporting an unblock here leans heavily on AGF / ROPE - and is made by editors that I strongly respect. Is this worth the time that the community may have to invest here? Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available? SQL^{Query me!} 05:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available? I posted his Wikispecies contribs, which aren't directly translatable to Wikipedia ones, but do seem to demonstrate a willingness to work productively in his fields of interest. Vaticidalprophet 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as others said above, per SO and ROPE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would go ahead and close this as it seems to have run its course, but am heavily leery of touching it despite the comments above by CUs due to the fact that it is a CU block; I guess I am just looking for further confirmation I won't get my mop snapped enacting this. (Looking at Template:Checkuserblock-account, it appears being able to link to a diff here would inoculate against such a fate.) @Yamla and ST47: et al do us admins have your CU blessing to undo the CU block in this instance and in accordance with the consensus here? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You have my CU blessing to undo the CU block in this instance if you believe that is the consensus of this discussion. I want to be very clear, I firmly believe this statement innoculates you against getting your mop revoked for doing so. Multiple CU's have noted there's no evidence of recent block evasion and that's what you need to know in order to lift a CU block. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:36, 3 May 2021 (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.

Demote Pallerti

Resolved

Pallerti is a corrupt administrator on the hungarian wikipedia who undoes a TRUE edit on Lando Norris' page. I would like to have them be demoted. --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: they also undid adding Another Round to Thomas Vinterberg's page before it won an oscar.

So corrupt, even Trump would raise his hat in front of them. User: Pallerti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Hungarian Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to use whatever process they have to address your grievance. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They also blocked me for "insulting a block"? --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we cannot help you with issues there. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Moselyn Larkin, ballerina, obituary

You have the wrong date of death. It should read April 25, 2021 not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bb10:2e20:7d41:1aa7:ac72:68dc (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not according to this obit. Do you mean another person with the same name? MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nakoda

This user have been created account Hellofriend202 it's was vandalism User_talk:2405:204:858b:395d::2299:b0. It's rose gold! (T?) 06:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The article is Nakoda and the user is Hellofriend202 (talk · contribs). I haven't checked this but FYI, reports like this should be at WP:ANI as it's an "incident". However, even if the user's edits are inappropriate, it is premature to report a user with four article edits and whose account is less than an hour old. Ask them to seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Does wikipedia want references

Checkout the article Erwin Helmchen. I added corrected stats with reference and they were deleted by the user Jiho3013. That's incredible if you need more contributions. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 User talk:Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 10:40 6 Μay 2021 (UTC)

Γεώργιος, User:Jiho3013 is another editor just like you. It seems that there is disagreement about the content of this article so the place to discuss it is Talk:Erwin Helmchen. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991)

14.231.163.204 warned more than 3 times. It's rose gold! (T?) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I did make explanation but received no reply. See talk page 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• @RoseGold1250: A lot of bad edits occur that need to be reverted, but please take more care with a revert like diff which restored "with the advantage belongs to China" in the first change. That's obviously bad text which is typical of a recent change by someone without much knowledge of English and possibly a similar disregard of sources. 14.231.163.204 (talk · contribs) should have used more edit summaries but they did start with a strong claim, namely "bad citations, info not found within sources" (diff). Particulary if you are going to report someone at a noticeboard you should investigate the details. Did you notice 14.231.163.204's two replies to your first warning at their talk (diff + diff)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I replied, I know this IP does not like "Chinese victory" because he is absolutely a Vietnamese. Solider789 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ujjwal 20

Resolved

Ujjwal 20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ujjwal 20 appears to have gamed the system with repeated useless edits to obtain Extended confirmed. EC should probably be revoked until they have actually earned it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Their response to this discussion doesn't demonstrate a strong need to edit Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Their early editing history is also questionable, and they continue to have a weird obsession with non-constructive edits to Breast and in general a 80%+ reverted rate on substantive edits. Commons contribs are mostly copyvios. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, in spite of a final warning not to do so, they created yet another user page for another editor. Not a very constructive one either. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• EC revoked for WP:GAMING. Once they have made 500 new non-trivial edits they may apply at WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• That's it! Their actions since this discussion was started and their EC status was revoked have confirmed that they are WP:NOTHERE. Consequently, I have blocked them indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ujjwal 20. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

KatayHan

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.

---

Legal threat[1]--Visnelma (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence

In Ekşi Sözlük, a Turkish forum, this article has been accused of "containing anti-Turkish propaganda" and this is likely to cause lots of vandalism. Just warning in advance.--Visnelma (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2021 (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.

Caillou Pettis article creation

Greetings administrators,

Is there any way a page could be created for film critic Caillou Pettis? He is a multi-media writer covering film, music, television and video games and his work spans across multiple high-profile publications such as Exclaim!, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute, Film Threat, and Flickering Myth. He is also a critic on Rotten Tomatoes.

There's a couple of news articles talking about his directorial efforts as well. I noticed the page was on lock for creation, hence the request. The last time the page was attempted to be created was in 2018. In three years, his work has spanned across plenty more well-known websites and his music reviews are also featured on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. If people such as Bilge Ebiri and Alonso Duralde can have articles made with less references, then he should be able to have a page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The story starts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caillou Pettis in 2016, and there have been repeated attempts to create a new article since then. If the person is now truly notable, then I suggest writing a policy compliant draft article and then asking one of the administrators involved with this matter to accept the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply, Cullen. I have attempted to write up a draft article and later, to submit it for approval, but even a Draft article for Pettis is locked to administrators only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Coverage on the web looks underwhelming. If I were the reviewing admin, I would deny such a request. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, DrKay. What kind of articles/coverage on the web would clarify for a film critic having an article? As stated above, for example, Alonso Duralde only has three references and none of them seem to meet the guidelines. Just curious what articles meet guidelines. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There is guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Essentially, there should be multiple secondary and third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd encourage any CU who happens upon this to take a look at the history of his hundreds of socks (which are also globally locked.) TAXIDICAE💰 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

   Check declined by a checkuser. All of the SPIs related to Caillou Pettis are stale by at least three years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector There's a ton of IP data in the SPI itself, which was more my point. There's also been some more recent ones that were locked without enwiki blocks but I'll have to dig for them. TAXIDICAE💰 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There's lots of IP data there that's useless for CU, because we can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. We have no choice but to treat the IPs that others have listed in the various SPIs as purely speculative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that a YouTuber with less than 5,000 subscribers who hasn't posted anything in two years is very unlikely to meet the general notability guideline. However, if someone with the ability to bypass the title blacklist wants to entertain the request, they can create Draft:Caillou Pettis as a blank page and then ElliesPoetry can edit over it. I'm familiar with FilmLover2016 and I'm electing not to do so; I would suggest that anyone who is considering it preview their deleted contributions first. @ElliesPoetry: if you are being paid for your edits, you are required to disclose who is paying you. Please see WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector - If the general consensus is that the subject does not yet meet the guidelines, I won't bother creating a draft page. Also, I am not being paid to edit any pages here, everything I do is just for fun and to provide the general public with information on various subjects. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Account sock blocked by a CU. Doesn't seem to be a CU-based block to me however. JavaHurricane 10:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by biased user "buidhe" on Turkish War of Independence

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

---

User "buidhe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buidhe) is constantly trying to modify and edit "Turkish War of Independence" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_War_of_Independence) by putting "ethnic cleansing" into the page aggressively. Looking at this person's historical edits; he is a biased armenian and it can be confirmed by looking at his top edits - his highest edits are on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial".

This person should not be allowed to free roam and modify articles such as Turkish War of Independence just because he thinks otherwise. He is trying to create discussion points and claiming consensus being made with no scientific proof provided.

I urge you to take action for this person's activities on Wikipedia. We love Wikipedia because it contains trusted information, not information provided by biased people.

Thank you for your time on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeSeekYou (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL I'm not Armenian. As for the Turkish war of independence article, many sources are cited and we achieved consensus for the wording on the talk page. It's interesting how this SPA puts Armenian Genocide denial in scare quotes. Says everything about their POV. (t · c) buidhe 06:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

WeSeekYou, you are single-purpose account with no edits other than making this request. This leads me to conclude that you are somebody who is trying to evade scrutiny for their actions with other accounts. In addition, this is a disruptive request, because it accuses somebody of wrongdoing with no evidence (and without the required notification); see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. A brief look at the edits by Buidhe indicates no problems of the sort you speak of. I am therefore blocking your account and taking no further action in response to this request. Sandstein 06:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I reverted edits by the SPA to UAA and ANEW on the same topic ([2], [3]). I suggest this is closed and the SPA blocked for personal attacks and presumed use of multiple accounts.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In Ekşi Sözlük, a Turkish forum, the article TWoI has been accused of containing anti-Turkish propaganda. And the user Buidhe has been specially targeted with her name given. So, there is a serious WP:Meatpuppetry going on.[4]--Visnelma (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus. There is definitely meat puppetry and probably some socks by the same hand.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 4 May 2021 (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.

Remove recent history of Scholastica (school)

Attention: The “section resolved” template needs a valid date. The section will not be archived otherwise. Please use {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} instead.

Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter error

I'm collapsing this due to the content. Fences&Windows 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of revdel

Please remove recent history on Scholastica (school) edited by an unknown IP and a registered user. They have Bengali slangs and offensive words. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC) I think you mean revision deletion, which is hiding the contents of an edit. We normally don't hide an edit just because someone says "shithole"[5]. We do if the article is a biography and someone makes a false negative statement or the comment is grossly disruptive but not over simply cursing/swearing. Policy limits what we can and can't hide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) @Dennis Brown:, Not just "shithole" things, it is about "unsourced allegation of child sexual abuse" in bad Bengali slang! [6] (also [7]) — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 05:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) I don't speak Bengali, and the only translations available to me come out as "As if to kill small children" and the like. I'm not sure what to do unless there is an admin that speaks Bengali and sees the translation as a violation. Google doesn't, and that is the best tool I have. Perhaps another admin can look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ...or you folks could just assume people aren't lying about the translation instead. Anyway, "kill" is probably an overly literal translation on Google's part; I read it as "they beat small children". There is a caveat here, however: I don't know what "putki" means, and if "putki marun" is indeed slang for some sort of molestation rather than physical abuse that "marte" alone would suggest, then I'd have to agree with Meghmollar2017. Either way, though, I don't think unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, whether physical or sexual, belong in the article history. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC) No need to be smarmy. One of the things I can't do is "assume" anything, not and use the admin tools. No one called anyone a liar, but that doesn't change the fact that RevDel is actually a very restricted tool and requires clear, objective evidence. Anyway, I will pass. Perhaps another admin will look at it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC) I got "so that small children can be kicked" trying to translate it online. Is anyone aware of an active user who speaks Bengali? Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm, Petscan finds five who were recently active https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?&since_rev0=&max_age=168&language=en&search_max_results=500&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&active_tab=tab_pageprops&categories=User%20bn-N&ns%5B2%5D=1&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&cb_labels_any_l=1&cb_labels_yes_l=1&cb_labels_no_l=1&project=wikipedia&edits%5Banons%5D=both&interface_language=en&&doit= Vexations (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC) @ArnabSaha: - Would you be willing to try to translate the above? Hog Farm Talk 23:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC) I don't get it, Hog Farm. Did I not just translate it above? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC) @M Imtiaz: - I'm trying to get a more precise translation of "putki", which looks like the key word here. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC) @আফতাবুজ্জামান: Would you like to comment here? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Hi, thanks for ping. Yes, i think we should revdel this & subsequent one. The line roughly translate as: "Scholastica was set up in 1997, to have sex with small children/so they have sex with small children". See wikt:পুটকি. Here putki doesn't mean to have sex but if you add "mara/marte" with it, then it uses that sense. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Revdeled the one contained "putki". Shouldn't be necessary to hide the one after it, as since the change is hidden by the revision, then the offensive text can no longer be seen. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC) seems like the issue has been solved...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal part deux

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 really confused by how administrative processes on Wikipedia work... I opened this appeal but it has been archived without any conclusion: [8]

I feel really bad that this is resulting in such a huge time loss for the community. I thought one uninvolved admin would decide on the case and we would be done with it one way or the other. Instead I am thrown into a never ending discussion regarding every edit I ever did (even those before the topic ban!) with editors wasting time on old useless discussions from years ago. Many of the editors are the same ones involved in my previous ban and grave new accusations are being brought against me with little or no proof. In this court of public opinion no rules exist to ensure fairness. Accusations can be levied freely without any proof or repercussion. Decisions are being made in haste based on hearsay and without proper context. Defending myself is impossible and might result in self incrimination due to due to my topic ban and accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing the process.

Are there no rules for handling those appeals? Is there a policy that specifies who decides if a ban is reversed? Based on what do they decide?

It seems no real process is in place. No rules exist to ensure fairness and it feels like the goalposts of the appeal are constantly moving and it will be impossible for me to ever clear my name and get a second chance. If I will always be judged on the past how can one learn and do better?

This whole experience has been extremely painful and distressing. I've always believed in Wikipedia and I want to contribute to building the best encyclopaedia of human knowledge. But every time I try to fix this situation that has been plaguing me since 2020 things become worse and I feel attacked from all sides. It seems there is just no way of getting out of those noticeboards alive.

This will be the last message I will post on this thread one way or another. I hope I will at least receive a clarification of the process and a final "sentence" for my appeal rather than another silent closure.

If not: so be it. This is my limit. The system doesn't work. I give up.

I love Wikipedia and really hope the community will find a way to fix those processes and become a less toxic and more welcoming environment soon. It can certainly do better than this.

p.s. yes, I don't believe in science. I believe in magic and fairy tales. I can't tell what a reliable source is and lack the competence required to edit. I am clearly paid to promote companies from another continent and to spread disinformation, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This is why I can't be trusted to write about the important and delicate topic of UFOs, but should stick to editing less critical pages such as those regarding COVID-19 and people's health. I guess it's a good thing I also don't believe in logic...

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no conclusion means no change. Not that it was headed in your favour anyway, but I suspect your response to Cullen328 sunk your chances. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you were blocked indefinitely in July 2020 for harassing Bishonen about this ban, were you not? And unblocked a month later? And now you come here with snark about the problems that led to your ban? That seems... injudicious. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• While that discussion wasn't closed there is clearly no consensus in it to lift the ban. I suggest you move on and edit in some area that doesn't relate to UFOs. A long track record of good contributions in other areas would be persuasive in another appeal. Repeated posting here about the topic ban is likely to have the opposite effect. Hut 8.5 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Listen to this advice. I, along with many other editors, have managed to edit for well over a decade without (as far as I can remember) ever editing about UFOs. They only constitute a minuscule proportion of our content. What is so difficult about avoiding that subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I guess this is not an appeal, so we're not !voting on whether it should be accepted, but let me put in my 2c that the PS in the original message constitutes a good argument that the topic ban is doing its job of preventing disruption, and that removing it would be a bad idea. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2021 (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.

@Fences and windows: thank you for the guidance and for taking action. The reason I was topic banned was corrected as disruptive editing in the subject area[9]. Could I ask for clarification regarding point 3? What is the consensus from the topic ban appeal? It wasn't formally closed and I see a mix of different opinions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The result was that there was a lack of consensus to unban you. --JBL (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to add that although the message above was obviously sarcastic, I never suggested and wouldn't claim that you are anti-science. While I believe I've met anti-science activists on WP, it's always difficult to tell what they really believe and the views they pushed contradicting science were in relation to specific areas of knowledge. It's also not the message I see in the comments of other editors concerning your editing on WP. —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, the mix of opinions is a reflection of how there was no consensus to lift your topic ban. If the discussion had leant more towards a consensus to lift then it might be worth further examining it and detailing the different positions, but that was not the outcome. You stated in your post that "This will be the last message I will post on this thread one way or another" and "I feel really bad that this is resulting in such a huge time loss for the community": I hope you will abide by this and respect that this discussion is closed, for now. Fences&Windows 00:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: the thread above is closed. I understand there was no consensus. What I would like to clarify is: 3. understand and accept why there was a lack of consensus to lift it this time. Since the initial ban suggested You are welcome to appeal this ban in three months' time[10] and I've edited other areas for over a year since then (I think successfully? I believe there is consensus on that) I don't understand what more I could have done and should do in the future. I obviously can't change the past in which my editing was disruptive. If you are not the appropriate person or this is not the appropriate place to ask those questions I would appreciate some guidance on how to receive some help. I am aware of WP:UNBAN but nothing is specified there. I just don't know where to find those answers to understand how to appeal successfully. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

emergency filter/notification

A Twitter user who blogged about the controversy surrounding Turkish War of Independence has instructed their thousands of followers to submit UAA (inexplicable, really) reports about Buidhe. Since I don't think UAA can be protected, can someone throw together a quick filter to stop the disruption? Normally I wouldn't ask in such a public place but it needs quick attention. I have some other ideas for filters to prevent further disruption if an EFM wants to email me. Grogudicae👽 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

but we should encourage these reports, the disruption caused by, ah, Gaelic yellowness is immeasurable! ——Serial 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about on par with the WP:CALIPH disruption so we may need a bit of a drastic, but temporary filter for the next day. Grogudicae👽 13:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My sources tell me that a filter is under way. Are any other pages affected? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz there is discussion on that forum I linked that is changing so I would make it broad enough that it could conceivably include ANI/AN, etc... Martin Urbanec has crafted a filter if someone wants to implement it here. Grogudicae👽 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The UAA filings are not at the filter level really. There have been a total of four such reports so far, and they have all been reverted within five minutes of being posted. I don't think any admin would block Buidhe over any of these reports, they are completely misguided and misfiled at UAA and should be easy to reject out of hand. The article and talk have been protect. Buidhe's page was protected. I would suggest protecting User talk:FDW777 and User talk:Visnelma possibly as well, as they have been targeted as well though in a secondary fashion to Buidhe.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the works and based on the number of helpees in irc-help, OTRS tickets and rants on the talk page at this time, I suspect it will continue and it's better to get ahead of it. Grogudicae👽 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this something that can be covered by an edit notice? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, no. If this is anything like the Caliphate incident, the people posting are all transmit and no receive - nothing we say will change anything, it's all because of our bias, yadda yadda yadda. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Raegan Revord

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

Probably time for this to be create-protected. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've salted the page for now. I'm pretty confident that it'll be removed at some point, but for the moment leaving as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Asingleton-green

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

---

I was looking a the dab page Underground when I saw that a non-notable New York nightclub had been added to it. I promptly removed the entry, believing it was just some petty IP vandalism. I then looked at the history, and was shocked to find that the entry had been added by an established user named User:Asingleton-green. I then clicked into his contribs, and found that he had been inactive since 2008, but had recently become active and now only edits about the nightclub I just mentioned. He created an article about the night club which does not meet GNG, which was then moved into draftspace by User:CommanderWaterford and is now located at Draft:The Underground, New York City. Based on his sudden return to activity, his fixation on a specific nightclub in New York, his creation of an article about the nightclub which does not meet WP:GNG and his placement of links to the New York nightclub page on various pages, I can conclude that his account has been hacked and used to promote the nightclub. SCP-053 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparent hacks like that do happen from time to time—I remember a high-school teacher with ~500 edits whose account switched to high-school-student-like vandalism after a few years' inactivity—but I'm not sure why you think it likely in this case. Asingleton-green had made 20 edits prior to April 10th of this year, the last being in March of '08. Most were about Baird Jones, an article which they have continued to edit since resuming activity, and which is also related to the New York City nightclub scene. (Incidentally, how have people added so much to that article without ever fixing the lede paragraph?) Setting aside potential conduct issues, seems like a pretty clear case of someone returning after lengthy inactivity. It's more common than you'd think. A few months ago I welcomed a user who had a 13-year (I think) gap since their first few edits. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Hold on. I posted the above message just in response to the "hacked account" aspect of things, but I've now taken the time to look at the substance of their edits. You neglected to mention that the club in question is out of business; while the draft doesn't say exactly when it closed, I gather sometime in the '90s. There's nothing to promote here. This editor just seems passionate about the topic. The club may or may not meet GNG, but that's not a conduct issue. As to placement of links to the New York nightclub page on various pages: Those "various pages" consist of Underground (a DAB page) and Baird Jones. In both cases, those are absolutely valid links; note that the draft was still in articlespace when Asingleton-green made the links. The links would only be an issue if non-notability were clearly established.

While this editor is not technically a newcomer, I'd still call this BITING. You owe them an apology for having cast aspersions on what seems to be entirely good-faith content creation. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 09:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to further drive home the inappropriateness of this report: Asingleton-green wrote an article, and then proceeded to link it from two appropriate relevant pages while it was in article-space; this is an utterly mundane and correct behavior (after I wrote affine symmetric group, the first thing I did was to link it from appropriate other articles so it wouldn't be an orphan). A trout for the OP. --JBL (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2021 (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.

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.

---

• Ah, I didn't read the draft, and believed that the nightclub was still open. Sorry. SCP-053 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (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.

RossButsy

RossButsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removing righteous edits on Human papillomavirus infection, Lifeguard and Captain Tom Moore. CoolGuyRonnie (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Backstory: RossButsy is reverting all of CoolGuyRonnie's edits because RossButsy believes that CoolGuyRonnie is a sock of KirkburnFandom/PoliceOfficer124 due to the overlap with previous socks [11][12]. No SPI was filed however. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• adding link to Sock Puppet Investigation for anyone so inclined, but not familiar with where to go. — Ched (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

CoolGuyRonnie checkuser blocked; global lock requested via email.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989

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 recommend permanently locking this article to avoid vandalism. Xiangqi555 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor that you've been edit-warring with, Bumbubookworm, claims in edit summaries that you are a sock of Japanese555 and Solider789. So far, neither of you has used the talk page to discuss your disagreement - the last comment there is from January. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bumbubookworm: Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This does look like socking, especially considering the low number of edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2021 (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 recieved legal threats

Hi I am sorry if this is the wrong place to write this but I have recieved several legal threats today due to my edits on Turkish War of Independence. How should I handle the situation? Is it possible that they can locate me? Thank you for your advices in advance.--Visnelma (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you receive these threats on Wiki? RickinBaltimore (talk)Questiuo — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Yes, I did.[13]--Visnelma (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) No one here can give you legal advice, but laws in Turkey do not extend past their borders. In terms of being found it's probably not very likely. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And on a technical level, the Turkish government can't trace the IPs of any edits that don't interact with servers they have jurisdiction over (unless they're resorting to hacking foreign ISPs or the WMF). So unless you've previously linked yourself to an IP (in which case go thataway!), they'd have to subpoena the WMF for your IP, which would, to put it mildly, be a whole thing. Per foundation:Privacy policy: if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it. We are committed to notifying you via email at least ten (10) calendar days, when possible, before we disclose your Personal Information in response to a legal demand. However, we may only provide notice if we are not legally restrained from contacting you, there is no credible threat to life or limb that is created or increased by disclosing the request, and you have provided us with an email address. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore:--Visnelma (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user who made that edit. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the user was blocked and I concur a very good block. If you see this in the future, it's best to report it and the user will be blocked for their actions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that message be revdel'd? It doesn't strike me as appropriate to leave something like that unredacted. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma you are not alone in being targeted by that faction. There are a couple threads above this one about the same problems. Added to that I received an obnoxious email as have others. People who do that can have their email capabilities removed by admins. I know that this fact doesn't make things any less unpleasant for you I just wanted you to know that there are people here that can understand what you are dealing with and they will help when they can. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I also concur that it is a good block and was about to do it myself if 331dot hadn't already. Visnelma if they start misusing email to contact you, let us know so that we can put a stop to it. If this does happen, I would advise against responding to any contact attempts they make via email as they do not have your email address and only get it if you reply (or email them first). MarnetteD if there are any new ones abusing email to report, please do so so that a stop can be put to it. We don't tolerate abuse. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Guettarda: I agree. I've revdel'd it per WP:DEL#REASON #14 as WP:NOT mentions not making legal threats in WP:BATTLE (this would also be arguably covered appropriately by WP:IAR in either case as it is against the project's goals). Pinging Visnelma for fyi. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone for their answers. I will take your advices into account.--Visnelma (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You must stop your inferiority psychology and Anti Turkish sentiment. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdmaf512 Are you interested in contributing to this encyclopedia, or just passing through to complain? 331dot (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

331dot Just passing through to complain. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Complained, passed through, gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

While the above "passer-by" was blocked by FPaS per "not here", I wonder whether it should be logged that it's a likely sock of the other blocked user. And whether the original WP:NLT-blocked user's contributions to ANI should likewise be revdel'd. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bdmaf512 is 12345wsa, and there's a fair chance that they're both Tarik289. I'll request global locks for all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I brought folks up to speed about this at the Foundation level (prompt response), as well. So now there's also a T&S case log number for this in their records. El_C 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I am glad to hear that. Thank you for doing that. @NinjaRobotPirate: ty. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: What about Badi_Bani? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Badi Bani is Bayramoviç, who is unrelated to the Tarik socks. Different country. These socks remind me of a site-banned edit warrior in the same geographical area, but there isn't enough evidence to connect them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. I've updated Badi Bani's block to match (TPA and email yank) and logged at SPI pro forma. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, can you please look at the named accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus (where Bani Bani, Bayramoviç, 12345wsa, ... were already listed prior to your finding)? There are several other accounts there with similar behaviors, that CU will possibly allow to match. Some of the accounts are older (they are all low edit, but some of them edited before the dispute flared up and others edited after the talk page became AC protected which barred newly created accounts), this may reveal more information. I suspect there are two-three different sock masters there (which CU may allow to separate, it is hard based on disruption only - based on your grouping above I'd think Trkn98 is also 12345wsa (possibly Tarik289)) + some meat puppets.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 01:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki's sockpuppet block

At 01:00 UTC on 4 May 2021, Kashmorwiki, a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker with just under 10,000 edits was blocked for sockpuppetry. Kashmorwiki had many questions. I started to answer them. You can see all of this on the last section of User talk:Kashmorwiki. I'm here on the noticeboard to request that Kashmorwiki's block be reviewed. It was over a year ago that this happened, and Kashmorwiki cited that as one of his reasons for unblock. I would like to know what Wikipedia's administrators think of this block and the discussion surrounding it. Chicdat (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Kashmorwiki said this: The term sock will surely get me into trouble. Because 99.9 percent socks are for abusing here. But my case is not like that. I hope the community will understand it. Chicdat (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Since when do we entertain third party unblock requests here, especially considering their current request is still unreviewed? Grogudicae👽 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent request for comment about third party unblock requests. Chicdat (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My main question is whether Kashmorwiki is actually 3Xed – because my read of policy is that they are not. 3X requires that someone engages in CU-confirmed sockpuppetry on 2 occasions after an original indefinite block; Sulshanamoodhi was only indeffed after they were caught socking for the second time – the first block was for a week. I would not consider that eligible for a 3X ban, and at the very very least there is ambiguity here; the authoritative statement Lastly, since you have used more than three accounts, you are considered banned per WP:3X. One administrator is not enough to lift your ban. You can only get unblocked by a community consensus at WP:AN. Do you understand? strikes me as too much, too quickly, especially because 3X ban calls are usually made by blocking admins, CUs or SPI clerks. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Chicdat, they are not 3X'd - 3X is for two occasions after an indef, not two accounts, and as a rule I only consider  Confirmed CU findings to count toward 3X. Chicdat, I understand you want to help, but I think your assistance in this unblock discussion is doing more harm than good. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Until recently, I believe, Chicdat was banned from editing admin areas, which they seem to have forgotten too quickly. And giving blocked editors advice that is wholly, indubitably wrong—as they did regarding WP:3X—is worse than an out-of-place {{nac}}. They should either voluntary reinstate the ban themselves, or have it reinstated for them. ——Serial 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at that link, I have three thoughts, two serious and one not:

1. That's pretty hard to read/understand the context of, considering it doesn't actually link to anything and so the only ones I know anything about are the ones I happen to have read.
2. It does look like a formal ban should be placed, and that there's confusion regarding the fact Chicdat was never formally banned from anything.
3. Is WP:Iritalk an admin area?

Vaticidalprophet 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I've always found Kashmorwiki to be a productive editor and would support an unblock. GiantSnowman 13:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have increasingly thought current enforcement of sockpuppetry is strange and leads to absurd outcomes. Some of WP:SOCK is logically inconsistent with its apparent goals. It seems like Chicdat is just trying to get more awareness to the unblock request from non-patrolling admins rather than crafting their own third party appeal. Given how sockpuppet unblock appeals usually go (ie often procedural declines or 'unanswered for too long' declines) this is probably not a bad idea. Off the top of my head I recall: a user being blocked after it was discovered they were evading for 5 years a six-year-old block; a user who was competently and significantly helping with the migration to Module:Adjacent stations, but it was later discovered they were evading an old CIR block so they were re-blocked; a user who went through multiple WP:PERM processes and was editing well, then confided in an admin that they were previously blocked on a different account and so ended up getting blocked; a user who offered to create an offwiki tool to find spam and apparently violated PROJSOCK by using a privacy alt disclosed to a CU (apparently with no editing overlap). Some of these were unblocked, others received no response (I tried to chase up on a couple to no avail). It's very difficult to say any of these blocks are actually preventing disruption or helped the project in any way. Several actively harm it and cannot possibly be said to be in compliance with WP:PREVENTATIVE, specifically: For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.. Haven't looked too strongly at the merits of this request however, and am not familiar with the editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• I just happened to notice this in my watchlist. Given that I was processing the SPI case, and Mz7 ran the CU, it might have been nice for somebody to have pinged us both. Given the extensive socking history here, I'm not inclined to have much AGF left. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the SPI link please? It would be helpful if a chronology of the socks (proven and alleged) could be set out. I assumed that there had been socking previously but nothing untoward for a year, is that not correct? GiantSnowman 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Grazie. So from a quick read there were socks in May and June 2020 but nothing after that? GiantSnowman 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shahoodu edited in December 2020. Further, they're also evading a global lock. Grogudicae👽 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. More concerning. GiantSnowman 16:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If RoySmith says they aren't inclined to AGF anymore, then they probably have a cogent reason for stating that, I didn’t meticulously look into the backstory nor the SPI case(s) as they appeared a tad bit too ambiguous/cumbersome and tbh Chicdat's participation in this case only muddied everything for me as opposed to clarifying/simplifying.

But FWIW, i have crossed path with Kashmorwiki and I believe that so far they have contributed positively and have shown interest in learning the ropes, as regards to building an encyclopedia, or at least that was my impression of them or what was deliberately being sold to me. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• The relevant context for this case is that Kashmorwiki previously edited as recently as December 2020 under the account Shahoodu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which is currently globally locked due to sockpuppetry issues on two projects: English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons. In fact, Kashmorwiki's activity overlaps with Shahoodu—before the Shahoodu account was blocked in December, the two accounts edited simultaneously on many of the same articles and talk pages. In their unblock request, Kashmorwiki has since acknowledged that they are indeed Shahoodu. I'm still reading through all of the discussion that has since taken place, but I would say this is the primary basis for my block. Mz7 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact they have admitted that this account is the sock of a globally blocked editor is alone enough to justify to me a denial of this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This comment exactly confirms why no unblock needs to be granted. I hope Mz7 and RoySmith will note this comment too. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think this editor should remain blocked, and, in general I support WP:G5 deletions, as I said here, but I do not think that its a good idea to tag for speedy deletion reliably sourced, neutral articles about subjects who clearly pass WP:NPOL just because they were created by this editor, as happened yesterday. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked around 1500 socks in the past (I was a clerk there for a time), and most of the time, there were disruptive. It seems a lot of folks think Kashmorwiki isn't. I think we need to consider a standard offer here. Mz7, the CU that blocked him, had enough faith that they authorized the block to be viewed as a standard block (on K's talk page), so it is up to us here. I would suggest a short piece of rope, including being limited to ONE account. A lot of eyes are going to be on K, so if they start drawing outside the lines, we will know pretty quick. I've always believed, for good reason, that if you don't work to rehab these kinds of situations, you just create more socks, ones with no reason to stay within the rules, so it just makes sense to work with people who are admitting their past behavior. As an ex clerk, and someone with a technical background, I know for certain that it is impossible to stop someone socking if they really want to. They could have but haven't since the block. Better to bring them into the fold with some reasonable limits. It's not even about what is "fair", it is about what is best for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Fully agree with the idea of a SO. GiantSnowman 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the idea of rehabilitation, otherwise you just create someone who doesn't care about following any of the rules. But I don't understand the point of SO in these cases, esp if they haven't misused multiple accounts in the preceding ~6 months. What are they proving: abstinence / that they're not addicted and can take a 6 month wikibreak? In one of the cases I mentioned above, you've got a user block evading for 5 years on a single static IP given a 6 month SO block, and told afterwards maybe they'll be able to "meaningfully contribute". Like actually what is the point? (Maybe WP:PUNISHMENT?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's important to take into account that they were using multiple accounts while also editing as Kashmorwiki, violating WP:ILLEGIT outside of the block evasion (full EIA here). Shahoodu edited until December 30 – not because the account was abandoned, but because it was discovered and blocked, and a second sock kept editing until February, so there is more to this than just block evasion out of a desire to contribute constructively, as they did in fact use multiple accounts in the last 6 months. While I do appreciate Kashmorwiki's constructive contributions, this does make me inclined to believe that they did not take a lesson that should have been learnt after their first, very short block for socking to heart. I don't think they should remain blocked forever (no strong opinion on when the right time to unblock is from my side), but I disagree with the implication that this was draconian enforcement of our socking policies. --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear I don't think this was out of policy and have no reason to think this is draconian (in part because I've only skimmed the details), but I'm making the general point that sock policy is often enforced in a draconian way and I think the SO suggestion following block evasion in such contexts (like the example I gave with the IP) doesn't entirely make sense and some cases seem like enforcing policy for the sake of enforcing policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Chicdat (talk · contribs) is currently blanket restoring a number of Kashmorwiki's recent edits and contesting deletions on their behalf [14][15][16][17]. Absent of an independent reason for each edit, which seems to be lacking this feels like WP:PROXYING? Chicdat, are you checking the various edits yourself? CMD (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • None of them have anything to do with the ban in this question. Please see User talk:Kashmorwiki#Blocked as a sockpuppet for more information. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Chicdat, you do yourself no favours by putting in edit summaries "Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor". That is exactly the position that does not have consensus here. If you wish to check out the sources of any article nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G5 and take responsibility for their creation yourself then you can do so (as I did for some articles yesterday), but leave an edit summary saying that that is what you are doing, and without any contentious statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Chicdat, I have looked at the user talk page as suggested, and Kashmorwiki explicitly brought up the G5 actions before your edits, so your edits seem to be a clear violation of WP:PROXYING. Per Phil Bridger, you should self-revert. CMD (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If an article looks good and sources are correct, why on earth would you want to G5 those articles? That seems somewhat aggressive. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Because not doing so would create a giant loophole - just keep creating socks and making good content until someone figures out you're another sock. I also noticed Chicdat restoring Kashmorwiki's edits and I strongly disagree with that, hopefully they will self-revert. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer I was under the impression that Chicdat was still under a voluntary ban from administrative and non-content areas. What happened to that? YODADICAE👽 14:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Who has verified that the articles are correct? According to the SPI, previous sockpuppets did not follow appropriate guidelines and carried out some vandalism. G5 means we don't have to waste time with sockpuppet creations, who are often blocked for content-related reasons. CMD (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I thought I saw the bot restore the removed comments, anyway, I thought there are a lot of articles from what I saw. Looks like a lot of work to sort out. I thought Kashmorwiki was a good editor... :/ Govvy (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have given second opinions on AFC reviews in the past, never noticed any issues. GiantSnowman 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Someone (didn't pay much attention to who) was also apparently blanket-reverting a bunch of AfD relists Kashmorwiki made, which annoyed me when it was one I'd made the AfD for, because it resulted in it appearing in a screwed-up/confusing way on the daily list. The AfD in question shouldn't have been relisted in the first place, strictly speaking, but I don't behoove people forgetting WP:NOQUORUM or feel a particular rush to get an article deleted in a week rather than two, and in lieu of that it's a bit annoying to see the daily lists get screwed up. As for Chicdat restoring edits, perhaps we could re-read WP:PROXYING: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. It's perfectly acceptable, per policy, for Chicdat to of his own accord and for his own reasons restore and take responsibility for Kashmorwiki's work on the encyclopedia. There is perhaps an argument to be made, considering the backstory here, that Chicdat doesn't know what he's signing up for on that front, but "do you really want to take responsibility for those edits?" is a different argument to "you can't take responsibility for those edits". Vaticidalprophet 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  This. As an SPI regular, I have no problem using G5/rollback on sock edits, but if someone contests them, I am generally happy to restore the deleted material/revert the rollbacks/etc. on the understanding that the contesting editor is taking at least a small measure of responsibility for the reverted material, at a minimum "I've read their editsand think it's okay" (though I am generally reluctant to do this for socks that we've identified as paid editors/editing firms). Whether Chicdat actually has looked into the edits that much or is just blanket reverting/contesting, I couldn't tell you. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) There's a right and a wrong way of taking responsibility for a blocked/banned user's edits. I venture to suggest that I was following the right way here and in a bunch of similar edits that I performed yesterday with no communication with Kashmorwiki (at least I have received no complaints), but that saying in edit summaries "Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor" is the wrong way. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  As you have partially bolded, policy requires that the edits are good "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I even specifically asked Chicdat above if they were checking the edits themselves above, and they replied only that the edits don't "have anything to do with the ban in this question". That is not taking responsibility for the edits in question. CMD (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Per my conversation with Mz7 here and their detailed analysis here, I’m not even sure SO be considered. Abusing multiple accounts is one thing, doubling down by using multiple accounts to interact with your self is gaming the system to a whole new level which I find extremely reprehensible and an archetypical example of NOTHERE. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked at the edits in question and am not about to, as I think the editors here will be able able to tell better if the edits were good or not. It seems that they don't really understand what Wikipedia is and think that it is some sort of game. In fact, I would argue that they initially thought that Cyclone Owen was a picture/article, that they thought would be put straight on the fridge/made into a GA/FA. could show off by putting on the firdge That is partially why the so-called ban from administrative areas was introduced, except it wasn't a ban but more of a suggestion from @Jasper Deng: as they were getting into a lot of unintentional trouble.Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand your point about Chicdat's early behavior, but I would argue that he has mostly improved it, and this is just a small mistake that should not be penalized just yet. ( It appears that he mainly just misinterpreted the result of an RFC to allow third party appeals in exceptional circumstances and thought it applied here, but the misstaken 3X advice is concerning. )Note that Chicdat did finally get Cyclone Owen promoted recently, showing their growth with help from a mentor. I think that the right choice here would be to keep the unofficial ban in place for now, but with an official warning that any more missteps in administrative areas would result in a formal indefinite topic ban without further warning, as they do seem willing to improve. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Jackattack1597: I would like to point out that Owen only got promoted to GA because MarioJump83 significantly improved and expanded it. Otherwise, it would still be in poor condition. Noah^Talk 00:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Can an admin block Salamaashu (talk · contribs)? They're obviously someone's sock who just registered and immediately involved themselves with this case. It seems like someone doing a poor job of trying to joe job Kashmorwiki. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done, DanCherek. I saw your note on their talk when I went to warn them about an edit to a page on my watchlist. As this unwinds, any admin free to alter this if needed. StarM 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    hello admins i was wondering if you could look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention as it is filing up. thanks Td^hello 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As a note

I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. Chicdat (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It is important to note that Wikipedia in these days are far more different than Wikipedia of the past. The bar is way higher than it was back in the day. MarioJump83! 07:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI backlog

Hello, is there any chance that a sysop could finalise this case as soon as possible, please? 256Drg is continuing to be disruptive and given that fifteen or more editors are calling for him to be indef blocked, the case does need early attention. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, user has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There are several other threads that are still awaiting further comments — the simplest of these is likely this report about an apparent LTA from Smyrna, Georgia. The report in the previous section was archived by a bot without adequate resolution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Problematic IP range

Lots of vandalism but some good edits from this range, not sure what to do. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Please see User talk:SlimVirgin#RIP. My understanding is there is some double checking that needs to be done but as it stands this is a tragic loss to the project. MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting this. I don't know the protocol and am honestly shaking at the moment because I posted to her page shortly after reading the email. Anyone can email me and I can verify. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is devastating news. I knew Sarah had a long-term illness and some recent emails indicated things had badly deteriorated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. She asked me reach out to her family if I didn't hear from her, which I did this evening and received the reply that she'd passed. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Victoria: This is sad news. Please extend my condolences to her family and friends. I hope they know how much of an impact she had on this community. I've performed some account security steps. –xeno^talk 00:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Very sad to hear this. Thank you for alerting the community. Arrangements are in process to globally lock her account. Risker (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Risker and Xeno for taking care of the paperwork. I'll send the link to her user page on to her family. Victoria (tk) 01:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Tajushshariya.png

I don't need a refund, but I'd like to know what File:Tajushshariya.png was. (was used on Akhtar Raza Khan) The upload description was "Uploading a non-free logo using File Upload Wizard". Was it a logo? Was it a crown? (I've seen images of crowns when I googled this) Or was it similar to File:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg? Or something else? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Crown. Identical to the one displayed in this YouTube link (minus the four small crowns). El_C 13:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

El C, thank you, that's all I needed to know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

Question regarding an ANI report

This report on ANI has become rather complex and from what I've observed many similar cases tend to go unattended and eventually archived without any comment from sysops. I think at this point, it might be better suited for WP:AE, would it be possible to move it there? I initiated the report and the one being reported is aware of DS sanctions on IPA topics. If not, I would request some sysop(s) to attempt to resolve it, since I fear it would most likely worsen issues in the future. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be at WP:AE, it needs to be related to an Arbitration case and decision authorizing discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan is the closest thing but it isn't a perfect fit. You can always file and see, but the reality is, there are way more eyes at ANI than at AE (or even AN). The eyes at AE tend to be more experienced at Arbitration cases, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• If the report languishes for longer, I would encourage moving to AE, and requesting discretionary sanctions under ARBIPA. ANI isn't well-suited to long-term tendentious editing. I will leave a comment at ANI in any case, as I cannot take admin action with respect to this user. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I have also filed an SPI report. VV 11:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like the ANI report was archived as expected. Anyways, at this point I don't have the time or energy to escalade it to AE and they have stopped editing on the page of COVID-19 pandemic in India altogether so I guess this is going to be left at that. The SPI does reminds me, I had noticed something similar some time ago and filed an SPI which included them which was endorsed but resulted in them being technically unrelated. The master account mentioned in the SPI has appeared on the pandemic page and is edit warring over the same thing (compare Special:Diff/1021860918 and Special:Diff/1020454223). If not anything, the page probably needs a 1RR restriction? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A 1RR restriction for COVID-19 pandemic in India sounds reasonable. VV 06:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AIV needs attention

Could an admin please look at WP:AIV as it has been backlogged for most of the past 24 hours? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And the chirping of crickets was the reply. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you make this post. There is a thread at the top of this page called #Open tasks that lists all the backlogs already. AIV is not the most backlogged, and the oldest report is 12 hours old (and even I can see on a cursory glance that most of the reports right now are bad). You're not even making an argument for why this particular backlog should be more important than the others, and you're making a second post because your first one wasn't answered in five hours? Seriously?? You realize admins are volunteers? If it really bothers you so much that AIV is "backlogged" for 12 hours, run for admin and patrol it yourself. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chirping of crickets might have been the reply on this board, but at the time you posted your chirping comment the backlog was 4 hours and 4 minutes. Something happened, evidently. Its acknowledment here is far less important. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A bot clears away older reports (including the one made by the original poster). As per Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 15 § Bot to clear stale reports, based on how the queue has been handled historically, reports beyond a certain age have generally been seen already by those responding to the reports. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It'd be quite a lot easier if everyone reporting football vandals provided proof that updating a number on a page constituted as vandalism. It's quite unmanageable, and out of all the reports on the page, only like 4 were actionable. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Case in point: [18]. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Michaelwallace22 editing review

I'd like to get some feedback on Michaelwallace22. On the surface it appears to be just a matter of making edits simply to run up an edit count for some reason. But these edits have become concerning IMO. Multiple editors have tried to talk to them, in just the last 6 months: Joseph2302, CycloneYoris, Xezbeth, Uanfala, myself, Joy, DrVogel and even a bot DPL bot, but the problems seem to be continuing. While individually they appear to be simply unconstructive:

• shadowing vandalism: [19]
• removing or "tweaking" {{DAB}} templates: [20] or [21] with an explanation of it being WP:SIA, but not putting a {{SIA}} template in it's place.
• Adding orphan tags to DAB pages (which when told about it they did go back and fix some of these) [22]
• Adding Wiktionary tags to Surname DABs .. that says it's a surname[23], or senseless additions [24]
• Adding article details that don't belong to DAB page [25]
• Changing encyclopedic verbiage to slang: [26], [27]
• There's also been a fair amount of dash/hyphen stuff that I really don't want to link to because it's a topic that was beat to death years ago.

There's been little feedback from Michael in discussions, and very VERY little to be gleaned from edit summaries which are minimal at best. (not that any of that is sanctionable, just trying to get a clear picture established here).

This editing has caused a lot of people a lot of time to repeatedly advise them to think before editing. Another problem now however, is that they appear to be editing while logged out, in order to edit war. [28](compare:[29]), and [30] At first it was simply unconstructive and annoying edits, but it seems to have now become disruptive. I don't know if WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE are exactly right, but I'm open to any and all input as to a way forward with this editor. I think "ignore" has become untenable. — Ched (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with all of the above, as I've seen it myself. My watchlist has been regularly full of edits like those for at least about 6 months.

If you look at edits like [31] and [32], he's replaced text that made perfect sense, with text that doesn't. In English, "football player and manager" makes perfect sense, whereas "footballer and manager" doesn't - the former means that a person is both a football player and a football manager, whereas the latter leaves the reader wondering what on Earth was meant. He's made a large amount of edits like that one.

And he's now taken to making those edits as anonymous IPs, including 68.234.129.36, 2601:CB:4001:4030:F02D:8FE6:AC75:DBF0, 2601:CB:4001:4030:DDFF:D974:3605:5997 and several more.

As pointed out above, several of us have done our best to engage with him, to no avail.

What can we do to work towards the best outcome for our project? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My apologies - I was having computer issues and wanted to continue editing, leading to the anonymous IP addresses (I couldn’t remember my password and didn’t want to create multiple accounts which I knew was frowned upon). I have not been responsive on my talk page, instead attempting to modify my edits to accommodate feedback. I have had the best intentions at heart in all my edits, and apologize for any edits that have come off as vandalistic, which has never ever been a motivation of mine.

To touch on specific topics, I have stopped shadowing vandalism (which I didn’t realize was an issue until it was called out and after which I stopped immediately). My edits on project tags were unproductive and I apologize on that end, as well as my edits on the orphan tags on pages that shouldn’t have had them. These came from a lack of experience rather than any ill will. In terms of dashes and confusing or poor language, I modeled my edits after language I had seen on existing pages, prioritizing uniformity over continuity, but can change here. I appreciate feedback on these, as language that makes sense to me might not make sense to others, and I am always willing to defer to the opinions of others. Ive been a little obsessed with the short page reports, leading to a lot of minor changes to minimally change the length of pages - my edit count has never been a point of direct care for me.

I have continued editing tonight, utilizing edit summaries more often and attempting to follow the advice of those who have been helpful in giving all this constructive feedback. I can make any changes needed to be a better editor, and apologize for my aversion to responding on my talk page (looking back at things I’ve messed up on is difficult mentally for me). Michaelwallace22 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. I previously reached out to Michaelwallace22 about his additions of {{long comment}} to dab pages; as far as I can see, after I pointed out this was unnecessary, he then stopped. Looking at the edits brought up above, I see two or three unconstructive ones (like bypassing "(disambiguation)" redirects: Michael, you need to be aware of WP:INTDABLINK). I also see quite a few harmless ones (there's nothing wrong with Wiktionary links on surname articles). The "edit war" involved two edits that were almost two months apart. The one thing that seems concerning is the continuation of the "footballer and manager" thing [33] (assuming the IP is him) even after it had been pointed out on his talk page.
Barring that, I don't see anything sanctionable. However, Michaelwallace22, you can't continue editing like that. I believe it would be beneficial if you paused for a bit to read up on the guidelines and to take the time to make fewer, but more substantial and better informed, edits. And if you see a need for any large-scale change (like the "football player -> footballer" thing), you need to ask the community first and not implement it unless you get consensus. That's not a requirement specific to you, this is an expectation of everybody here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with this being closed with no action taken, Iff Michael takes these things onboard and we get some improvements here. That would be great in fact. Now, Michael - as far as not being able to log in, or losing your password: Read: WP:ENABLEEMAIL. It will walk you through the steps to take so that you can recover/change your password if needed. If someone reverts you - do NOT simply revert that, ESPECIALLY while logged out.[34] Find out why you were reverted, and discuss it. I'll also try to follow-up a bit later on your talk page with some more links that may help. Probably the single best piece of advice I've ever seen on wiki. If you're in doubt .. DON'T. — Ched (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Michaelwallace22, would you mind explaining the significance of edits like this: [35] [36]? – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had been finding pages that didn’t have the current version of the official long comment, and edited them using the current template. I thought it would be helpful to update these to be in line with the current version, but can stop if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwallace22 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? This is minor fiddling with an html comment only visible to editors, and it doesn't change its meaning. This is a cosmetic edit. Please don't make an edit if the change is going to be only cosmetic. If there's any particular need to change the html comment for the 6,700 pages that uses it [37], then the way to do it is via a bot task, but there's no way a bot task can be approved for something as insignificant as that. I think you really need to read WP:COSMETICBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Questioning authenticity of trivia

I am wondering given my recent edits were reverted and I found one of the members on a recent discussion telling me to quote. "Do something better next time round." I felt that was an insult to me as an editor who has done nothing but make good contributions...but I want to ask...If wiki does not deal in Trivial stuff. Why is there a lot of it on many town, city, county pages etc unless it is noteworthy like a tradition? RailwayJG (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG, in general, see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Just because trivia exists elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean that more trivia should be added. That does beg the question of whether your edits were trivia; reasonable minds often differ on that question. Could you please supply diffs of the actual editing dispute? Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections if you haven't already. This type of content should be properly referenced. It is well known that many experienced editors do not like trivia content and push back against adding it. Other editors love it. So, there is going to be tension. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons admin needed

I would like to email a Commons admin about a possible attack on an identified person in some uploaded images. I know how to find an admin at Commons but am hoping to find someone here who has noticed me around. Any volunteers? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: this may be something you should send to commons:Commons:Oversight, if you think there is a current threat of physical harm to someone, please contact WMF directly using the contact information at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If it has not yet been resolved you can e-mail me (and I am going to bed now, will only be able to act in the European morning). I am not an oversight though.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Moved to ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

CSD Abuse

Moved to WP:ANI

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, see Ahl-i Hadith history! - Owais ^Talk 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If any of the edits there can be classified as vandalism these are your edits. Do not you know that removing large pieces of sourced text is generally not ok? Certyainly it is not ok to continue removing them without any discussion if the removal has been reverted?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A few more eyes needed at WP:RFPP

Maybe the page protection requests have been coming in faster than usual - but for whatever reason, the backlog at RFPP has been over 30 for the past several days. Lots of people have worked on it, doing whatever they can, but can't seem to get the backlog below 30 requests or 24 hours. If anyone has a little time to spare, that's an area that could use some help. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I actioned a few but have to run unexpectedly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We are ok-ish now, but indeed this is a recurrent situation as MelanieN, as one of the admins regularly working there, knows very well. It might be a good idea for admins to add this page to the watchlist. The bot edits, several times per day, on this page indicate in the edit summary how many unactioned requests there are on the page. This number can be a bit off for some technical reasons, but definitely if you see a number more than 40 in such an edit on you watchlist, this is an indication that we are badly backlogged, and might need your help even with just one or two requests. Over 60 means a catastrophe.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs randomly changing numbers in articles

There have been IPs randomly changing numbers in various articles mostly connected to Religion in Russia for a while now, see 95.132.134.221, 2402:4000:12C3:AF97:1:0:26CE:47D5, also [38]. Religion in Russia was page protected for a while starting April 1, but it expired April 10. As the edits above show, the problem is not limited to that article either, with some at Thai People, and others at Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Islam in Russia. There have also been similar edits at Dnieper ([39]) and I'm certain at other locations as well, but I can't remember exactly where I saw them. It's been going on for a while. I'm inclined to believe that it's the same user using a proxy, or maybe there's some concerted effort online somewhere to vandalize Wikipedia as one IP geolocates to Ukraine, one to Sri Lanka, and one to India. Anyway, some admins looking into it/anyone sharing similar changes made elsewhere would be appreciated.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User Report of Hoa Bihn, an account for vandalism. Please be fast!

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.

---

Hoa_Bihn (talk · contribs)

This User:Hoa Bihn is vandalism intended account abusing me. He was blocked on Wikidata because he was vandalising datas. Now, he is here, irritating users and vandalising articles. Please block him as soon as possible..245CMR.•^👥📜 17:33, 13 May 2021 (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 review RFC close

Talk:Nikki Amuka-Bird#Request for comment - Infobox was closed by User:Wugapodes as "Rough consensus against including an infobox at this time." However it had five voices in favor of an infobox and three against one. On User_talk:Wugapodes#Talk:Nikki_Amuka-Bird_RFC_Infobox?, Wugapodes says that he discounted the five voices, even though they included some experienced editors. Could we have a review of whether this was an accurate judgment of consensus or a supervote? --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• No issue with the close. Given the arguments for an infobox consisted of "It standardizes presentation of information" - not a particularly strong argument for why an infobox should be on any article. Its an argument for infoboxs in general. "Other actor articles have them" - yeah we have a bluelink for that type of argument. "It makes it easier to find information" - This particular article contains most of the infobox info in the lead. The only way it would be quicker to get that information was if they didnt read the article at all and only looked at the infobox. All in all, absolutely terrible arguments for including an infobox at a specific article, the last one is actively encouraging people not to read the article. On the other hand we have "Delete the infobox and have a bigger picture as its more useful given the lack of info in the infobox" - a good and article specific reason for not having one. And the remaining votes point out that the infobox is just duplicating the limited infomation available on this subject on the left. Again, specific to this article. Given the yes votes are particularly weak, even by infobox standards of arguments, at best this is a no-consensus to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - it seems that five editors commented supporting the addition of an infobox to the short biography Nikki Amuka-Bird, while three editors opposed adding an infobox. Wugapodes closed the RfC siding with the three editors who said the infobox is unnecessary. Ordinarily I agree with Wugapodes on all things Wikipedia, but in this case, I agree that the bio would look much better if it had a small infobox. I don't think it really matters if the infobox repeats information from a short bio: in my view all bios should have an infobox. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). Wugapodes closed it correctly. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't valid. Articles are required to comply with broad community consensus. Counter-examples linking to another article doing it the same way are not valid. Given that Category:Wikipedia article cleanup (and its subcats) contains over a million articles, there probably exists an article somewhere doing any given bad thing; if counter-examples were good arguments I'm sure I'd also be able to justify why BLP violations are good (because that article does it too!). Here we had a tiny infobox on basically a stub article duplicating information that was in the single sentence lead, hurting the reader experience. MOS:INFOBOXUSE says infoboxes have to be useful for a given article, not that all articles of actors must have one. The arguments saying all actors should have one directly contradict community consensus, and thus should be disregarded. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't participate in this discussion but I'm usually on the pro-infobox side of the Infobox Wars, having !voted with valor at the Battle of Ian Fleming and the Battle of Mary Shelley Pocket pocket. While I'm not sure about the Skirmish of Nikki Amuka-Bird resulting in a consensus against including an infobox at this time, I think it was no consensus, and definitely not consensus in favor.
  Numerically, 5-3 is a "50%+1 result", meaning it's the minimum margin greater than even (which would be 4-4), the slimmest possible majority for that number of participants. So, not much significance should be given to the numerical majority, as it's very close to an even split (as close as possible without being an exactly even split).
  On the merits, there were arguments made against having an infobox on that particular article at that particular time: first, the subject is an actor, so a larger-than-infobox-size headshot may be helpful to the reader; second, the article is extremely short at this time, and the lead in particular is one short sentence, which contains all of the information that would normally be in the infobox. An infobox can help distill a multi-paragraph lead down to some key facts presented in a standard format, but the benefit of doing so is reduced when the lead is one sentence containing those same key facts. As such, the oppose !votes deserved at least as much weight as the support !votes. Now, I'm not sure that the oppose !votes are so strong that they should outweigh all the support !votes, resulting in consensus against including an infobox, but the global consensus of WP:ONUS means we need affirmative consensus in favor to include an infobox in this situation, and there definitely wasn't that consensus in favor in this skirmish discussion.
  So, I think the result (no infobox) is correct, and the "at this time" qualification of the close is effectively the same as a "no consensus" close: when the article and lead are expanded, the question can be revisited again. So I think at bottom any quibble I have about "consensus against at this time" vs. "no consensus" is more semantic than real. For these reasons, endorse. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close. This was a reasonable close to a close call. —valereee (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn close - the closer's comment "this article is better served by a larger picture of the subject" appears to be their own opinion, which should have been expressed as a comment in the RfC, not its close. (Besides which, with my default settings, the image is larger with the most recent version of the infobox than the article as currently without it.) There are also false claims about the infobox (as seen on 3 January, immediacy prior to the RfC being opened) in the discussion (example: "everything is directly on the left making it redundant"; "there is nothing there, it is generic" (or are all actors married to Geoffrey Streatfeild?); "The infobox gives [only] 4 facts") - that's one in each of the oppose comments - which are not accounted for in the closer's assessment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • appears to be their own opinion, which should have been expressed as a comment in the RfC Increasing the picture size was a recommendation by discussion participant scope creep (Delete it and make the image slightly bigger) which was echoed by Procrastinating Reader (Replace it with picture of subject). Given that multiple participants gave specific recommendations on how to improve the article and the job of a closer is to summarize discussion, I thought mentioning that specific recommendation would be a good idea. Also you cite a version of the article that was not live when anyone commented in the RfC. Rusted AutoParts started the RfC at 20:28 3 January but you cite the 06:11 3 January edit which was three edits before the RfC started. Leaving aside the first oppose (made by the editor who made those three changes), the other two opposition !votes came at 16:09 15 January and 12:17 18 February. There were 7 (diff) and 8 (diff) revisions between your "evidence" and the comments being made. So no, I'm not going to fact check comments based on revisions that weren't live when they commented. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Of course I "cite a version of the article that was not live when anyone commented in the RfC"; so does everyone else in the discussion. It is indeed necessary to do so, because the whole RfC is on whether to restore a feature that was in the article, but which has been removed. I don't dispute that scope creep said what you quote; my point is that rather than noting their opinion, you make make a similar claim in your own voice as though that opinion were fact, disregarding equally valid opinions to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

      You did realise the infobox was on the article throughout the RfC, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong:

• 11:57, 3 January 2021‎ - infobox removed
• 20:28, 3 January 2021‎ - RFC opened
• 09:58, 15 January 2021‎ - infobox added after twelve days without infobox

All but three of the comments in the RfC were made in the period without an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing, and while there might have been a case for a "no consensus as of this time" close, I don't think Wugapode's close is wrong or unacceptable here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse good close that accurately reflects the quality of the arguments offered. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

CAT:UNBLOCK

There's a lot of names there. I blocked someone earlier today, and told them an uninvolved admin would be along to review the unblock request, but it was only for 36 hours, and... I'm kind of doubting anyone is going to get down to the letter "S" by then. I realize 36 hours isn't the end of the world, but it seems like our mechanism is broken. I'll try to clear a half dozen of them later tonight (as a sort of penance for not looking at that page for a long time), and try to remember to review an unblock request every time I log on, but if a few others want to pick some names out of the list, that would be swell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I really wish it were possible for non-admins to help out. I totally would. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel you (some requests could probably obviously be denied, especially the ones that are of the WP:NOTTHEM kind). Maybe a better option would be considering running for RfA? The current RfA drought is approaching 3 months... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried that. My heart stopped and I ended up spending the rest of my RfA in a medically induced coma. ^{(just kidding. The one had nothing to do with the other. It was an electrical problem in my heart and now I have a pacemaker.)} --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should add "get a pacemaker" to WP:Advice for RfA candidates? Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I feel bad. I nominated you Guy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've heard of ANI-flu (or was it ARBCOM-flu), but... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Proof positive that while being dragged to ANI is bad, being dragged to RFA is even worse. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You realize you're just begging someone to drag you to RfA? —valereee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken your feedback on board and struck my comment. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On the rare instances I get dragged to ANI or AN, I often end up throwing boomerangs, but nevermind... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I would love to be an admin one day but I absolutely don't have a chance. There's a drought because the requirements are so high. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: - When I returned, before I got my bits back I was helping out at RFU. I'm not 100% sure if non-admins can technically decline these requests - and they sure as heck can't grant them, but there are often guidance, and questions that are helpful such as 'what do you intend to edit if unblocked?', and 'User:SomeCompany999, what is your relationship with SomeCompany99?'. SQL^{Query me!} 15:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add two personal caveats to this. In general, I agree with SQL that non-admins can help out, in the way they describe, BUT (1) I am fairly sure I've seen a discussion or two - sorry, cannot imagine where, you'll have to either trust me or start a new one - that only admins should "officially" decline unblock requests, and (2) Please, please, only experienced non-admins. Please. New, inexperienced, but enthusiastic editors can cause lot of disruption giving bad advice, making bad decisions, coming into a stressful situation to unintentionally bait the blocked user, etc. I have seen this happen, personally, maybe half a dozen times on blocks I've made. This is NOT addressed to any of the people who have already commented in this thread; all of you have at least 5x the experience I'm talking about. It's addressed to the newbie reading this in the future, who's heart starts racing a little when they hear that they can help review unblock requests. Please be confident you know what you're doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion was one of them? Folly Mox (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll pay more attention to the oldest of them; I usually try to cherry pick the most recent ones. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I learned something new today. If you add |idletimestamp=20210511224703 to an unblock request (and don't preview it before publishing?), it adds it to Category:Requests for unblock awaiting response from the blocked user - and removes it from CAT:RFU. It's automagically removed from that category, and re-added to CAT:RFU once someone edits the user's talkpage. Neat. Thank you again. ToBeFree!!! SQL^{Query me!} 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Mind. blown.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  For people as dumb literal, or more literal, than me, that's actually |idletimestamp={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}. you don't have to put the time in yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Oh crap, I didn't think about the nowiki. LOL! Thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I unblocked a few and declined a couple. I am going to try to get into the habit of patrolling a few of these almost every day. Call me out if I fall down on the job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The idletimestamp parameter is the result of about one month of frustrated looking at a list that was "technically completely processed" but still not noticeably decreased in size. I think the record is bringing the category size down to a single digit of transclusions, which is when the number of sub-categories suddenly matters for determining if {{backlog}} should be displayed. When I woke up the next morning, the category size was at over 20 again, and I walked away thinking of Sisyphos. I might try to help with the backlog again this evening, but clearing it together with at least one other administrator who re-declines hopeless cases is a task for a month, not a day. After-discussion maintenance (re-blocks after broken promises, or complex questions about declines) also practically never ends. I recently had to remind someone who violated their unblock condition after one year of adhering to it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in there almost every day, looking at new-to-me requests. It is indeed sisyphean, and you'll occasionally get called a nazi or worse. I try to occasionally close off the really old requests with {{subst:decline stale}}, but not everyone likes that approach. The process is made harder by people occasionally missing the point and making similar requests, obviously doomed to failure, over and over again. I also patrol UTRS, though we generally keep that backlog under control. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Without Yamla, CAT:RFU would be an unmanageable mess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been a concern of mine for a while. This isn't the only area where a few admins -- or even just one -- are doing all the work. We all appreciate these dedicated individuals, but there is a real possibility of burnout. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be quite candid. When I filed an RfA, I answered Q1 saying I would review unblock requests. A short while later, I disagreed with another admin who didn't see eye to eye with my unblocking (to put it politely) and subsequently I have given them a wide berth. In particular, I haven't the faintest idea how to deal with a checkuser-blocked editor saying "I am not a sockpuppet of 'x', I've never heard of that person". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Since you couldn't grant the request no matter how well-justified, surely the only equitable thing to do is to refer the user to a (different) checkuser? After all, that's the primary justification WP:Blocking policy#Unblock requests gives for forbidding nonadmins from declining unblock reqs. —Cryptic 16:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Emmanuel Adebayor

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.

---

Can someone revert the move? Clearly disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How do Nigerians deal with surname order? If they use Western order, then sure, this should be reverted, but if they go with surname-first then it would be a return to "convention". Primefac (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Emmanuel Adebayor is the WP:COMMONNAME, always in commentary it is pronounced that way. Its French, so why would his name be backwards? Govvy (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been dealing a lot with odd or unusual family name usage recently, so to me it seems like a valid question since I don't know what they do. Your explanation seems reasonable so I'll move it back. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It now appears to be vandalism. YODADICAE👽 17:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I've looked at a few of their historical moves and they appear reasonable. Not sure what spurred this outburst. Either way, I've blocked them for 31hr. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (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.

Thank you for that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lost 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.

---

Sharmakshat2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the HMHS Britannic article, and somehow the talk page has disappeared. It is not showing as having been moved by Sharmakshat, and accessing the talk page is not showing it as having been deleted previously. Nor is it showing at the talk page of where Sharmakshat moved the article to. Can someone track it down and restore it to its correct place please? The article has been moved back to its correct place. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Eureka! Found it and moved it. Should have checked "what links here" in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2021 (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.

Edited much-used templates, please check

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

---

I've edited {{They}} and {{He or she}} because a new {{tfm}} template for a merge discussion was being transcluded into every use. Surrounding the tfm templates with noinclude seems to have worked but there might be other consequences, other best practice – I don't know. Could someone check, and if they're wrong also fix {{He/she}}? NebY (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2021 (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.

Help me! I am surrounded by vandals

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

---

User:RunaSB is a Sockpuppet from a user from Wikidata and now he is vandalising my userpage. Please block him and try to protect my page as will create another account and start again..245CMR.•^👥📜 12:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That has been handled by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (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.

Spi abuse and retaliation against me by My very best wishes

I have been having disputes with another user about sources. As of yesterday they accused me of being a sock puppet and now today they're accusing me of being another sock puppet. It seems like they're using any little thing to get me banned since I don't agree with their viewpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nicky3331. Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the administrators as it doesn't seem like it's going to help being new users to Wikipedia, If they're being accused everyday of being different sock puppets.Thelostone41 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Both are legitimate SPI requests with evidence, which involve not only your account, but also other accounts. Note that the first SPI request resulted in two sockpuppet accounts being blocked. Please just wait until the second SPI request will be resolved and closed. You are welcome to express any disagreements on the SPI page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The sock report came back negative for me it seems like my wiki colleague is trying to get me banned as a sock and are using any little thing to get me banned.Thelostone41 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You may just overlap areas of interest with the sockpuppet accounts, so it appears that you're connected even if you aren't. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, My very best wishes was not notified about this report. I have notified them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While I get the whole "procedure must be followed" thing, C.Fred, they were the first one to comment here... Primefac (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred I did tell them about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1022975829&oldid=1022849638.Thelostone41 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thelostone41: My apologies. I didn't see that they deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• My apology for deleting it. But I am not sure what exactly user Thelostone41 would like to achieve in this AN request. I filed a number of SPI requests before. It was never a problem. User Thelostone41 did say here that they work for the company Draft:ShariaPortfolio, and it was without making any proper WP:COI notification on their user/talk page. Hence I thought he is possibly the same person as Nicky3331 who created the draft for the page about this organization. Was not filing the 2nd SPI request a proper course of action? Prior to filing such request, I did ask if such request would be appropriate here, but received no response. I do think that editing by Thelostone41 is problematic [40], but this is not a proper noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thelostone41, I can understand that a sockpuppet investigation would feel very upsetting, but it's nothing personal. Place a WP:COI disclosure on your user page and that should clear up any further confusion. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Continued sockpuppeting

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 indefinitely blocked editor behind User:Bionoetics and User:Celtictales seems to have created a third account User:Celticsisters to insert the same problematic content into the same 3 articles. Apologies if I haven't followed the right procedure on flagging a sockpuppet - never have to do this before! Smirkybec (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sock if I do say so myself. Indef'd as a sock, and in the future you can file a report at SPI for suspected sockpuppet cases. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I will :) Smirkybec (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Question about free use for Artificial Organs (journal)

Hello,

I am a bit confused on what the requirements for free use for images are. For example, I posted an image of a Journal cover that I was given permission for (I have the email if anyone is interested), but that was removed since it is not free-use compatible. Could someone clarify on what I am doing wrong/what else I would need to do to make the cover compatible with free use?

Thank you!

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillathehun (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tortillathehun: If the copyright owner is willing to license the image under the copyleft licenses that Wikipedia uses (WP:CC BY-SA and WP:GFDL), then they should follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. (And it has to be them who does this, not you.) If they've only given permission for you to use it, then I'm afraid that's not enough, as any images added to Wikipedia (that aren't exempt as fair use) must be okay for anyone to use. For future reference, a question like this is more suited to The Teahouse. This noticeboard is more for administrator matters. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 23:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that the Commons does not accept non-free images. I have uploaded a copy locally and added the appropriate fair use rationale and license.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues

Already tried at ANI, but that's seemingly been ignored. Please see the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues. As I've noted at the SPI page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caidin-Johnson may also be involved in this, which would make all of this part of a bigger LTA issue. Magitroopa (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Aribitration enforcement

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.

---

Four reports have been filed in the last 5 days on WP:AE, including one appeal, and there's been nary a response from an admin. Would any of you folks with the bit care to wade in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Five reports now, and no bites. Can't say that I blame any of you: one of the joys of not being an admin is that I don't have to worry about sorting out AE reports, since I can't even if I wanted to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A number of admins have stepped up, so this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2021 (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.

House of Corsi hoaxing

O Correto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have indef blocked User:O Correto for writing blatant hoax articles on the Italian Corsi family, as recognised by Þjarkur.

I have speedily deleted most of their article creations as none of the content was verifiable: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/O%20Correto/0. They all used sources that did not mention the people they were used to support. However, further back in time articles Antonio Corsi, Giovanni Corsi, Bardo Corsi, Nera Corsi, and Giovanni di Jacopo Corsi may be real people, though I'm less sure about the latter and they may all need attention. Also the overall article House of Corsi and the expansion of composer Jacopo Corsi need attention.

This appears to be part of a pattern of long-term abuse also affecting Commons, Pt Wikipedia, and It Wikipedia. File:Busto di Antonio Corsi por Alessandro Rondoni.jpg was uploaded by User:Frost Hyuuga, who is globally locked as a sockpuppet of User:Vinciussssss (locked by User:Tks4Fish), who had tried to create an article for Vinci Corsi on Pt Wikipedia.[41] On Pt Wikipedia, O Correto was tagged as a sockpuppet of Vinciussssss, but then unblocked. Another connected globally locked account is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/O_Marqu%C3%AAs_de_Caiazzo. O Correto has made a lot of uploads to Commons connected to this hoax: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/O_Correto. This account may also need to be globally locked. Fences&Windows 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

O Correto has appealed their block. Fences&Windows 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thanks for pinging me. I had previously CU-confirmed, locally blocked and locked O Correto, but he was then un(b)locked after a successful appeal at ptwiki. I am particularly inclined to re-lock the account, considering he has fallen back into his old behavior, but I'll talk with my colleagues about it before acting. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 05:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Strange redirection

Hi:

Observer (disambiguation) has been redirected to Observer in 2008. I do not know the reasoning at the time but since the latter is a disambiguation pages, would not it be more logical to reverse the redirection?

Pierre cb (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not really an administrator issue. There are lots of redirections like this because, with many common words, it is likely that someone would link to XXXX (disambiguation) if they intended to link to the disambiguation page explicitly, not necessarily expecting XXXX itself to be a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is the full guideline on how to set up disambiguation pages. In most cases, if there is a primary topic, THAT primary topic would be named "XXXX" and the disambiguation page would be named "XXXX (disambiguation)". If there is no primary topic, then "XXXX" is itself a disambiguation page, and "XXXX (disambiguation)" either doesn't exist, or itself redirects to XXXX. It's not really a problem because redirects are cheap. --Jayron32 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It also allows for clearer hatnotes. "For other uses, see Observer (disambiguation)" makes it clear that you'll be going to a DAB page. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Creation of User 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.

---

My name just so happens to be the same as another wikipedia article, which I previously had not known, and will not let me create my own personal user page. The message reads:

Creation of this page (User:𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖊𝖘 𝖁) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard or on the talk page. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page. Thank you.

This is not likely to be confused anyways, because:

• my name is in a different font
• requires copy/paste to discover
• no one would be confused by it

I rest my case. 𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖊𝖘 𝖁 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖊𝖘 𝖁: Your username violates WP:NONSCRIPT. Please change it immediately, or I imagine you will end up blocked. GiantSnowman 21:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We really should have an edit filter to warn/disallow creation of accounts that use non-script or emoji usernames. Being allowed to create an account with these characters in it only to be immediately blocked for a username violation really is not a welcoming first experience for a new user. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Request review of DRV close

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

---

Relevant links that provide extensive context are at the bottom.

Background

The underlying issue is related to the development of a collection of software modules that comprise Wikipedia’s WP:CS1, a widely used native citation system. This is applied by editors through templates. More specifically, it concerns the naming of a subset of module/template parameters and their aliases. This is a technical matter. Several discussions on the subject have taken place at the project’s talk page in the past few years, and it has also recently been the subject of an RfC.

In the course of these matters, lately a maintenance category was created to track the related parameters. Following the above-mentioned RfC, an editor nominated the category for deletion at WP:CfD.

After discussion in which I participated under various unregistered handles, the nomination was closed as "delete". I disagree with the closer’s verdict and brought the issue to WP:DRV.

My nomination at DRV was not subtle, or nuanced, on purpose. Mainly, I contend that the CfD close is a misrepresentation of consensus. I believe the closing opinion manipulated participants’ positions in order to manufacture a certain result. I mostly use the closer’s own arguments as evidence. A secondary aspect of the DRV nomination asks whether there should have been a closing opinion for the CfD nomination at all, and whether the CfD nom should be voided.

Currently

The DRV close was "no consensus". This is not obvious, not supported by the proceedings, and without sufficient justification. The close skirted the main issue of the DRV nomination, except to somehow assign equal weight to diametrically opposite positions. Following the close I started a discussion at the DRV closer’s talk page. I bring the issue at this forum for resolution because the discussion with the DRV closer, which was becoming increasingly circuitous and sterile, has now ended.

I request a review of the DRV close, and a noticeboard decision on what, if any, steps are to be taken next.

Links

The DRV nomination and reviewer’s opinion:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10#Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter

The discussion at the reviewer’s talk page:

User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10 2

User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10

The XfD that prompted my DRV nomination:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter

Thank you. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is absurd. There's clearly no reasonable way of reading the DRV as a consensus to overturn the CfD, and there's no point in distinguishing between "no consensus" and endorse since the outcome is the same. You've been told this several times already, but I'll say it again: please drop the stick and stop bludgeoning the process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Pppery and refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10. Sandstein 08:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The link is superfluous. It is already linked at the OP under "Links". Did you not read the OP? It is mostly about your decision. 24.103.251.114 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, drop the stick please. If you are trying to go for the forum shopping record, next stop is User talk:Jimbo Wales I guess. —Kusma (t·c) 09:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain? The forum for CfD appeals is DRV. The forum for DRV appeals is here, as I was told. Look for the section "Venue guidance" on this page. Other than that, anything of substance to add? 24.103.251.114 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I note that Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter hasn't even been deleted or depopulated yet. Appealing a DRV is usually at best a complete waste of time, and I'll stop participating in this discussion. If you want changes, you'll need to start a new RFC about the underlying issues next year, not continue to appeal this decision. —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the category remaining intact was the original CfD, which threw a wrench at ongoing discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. That CfD lead to the present chain of events. Your opinion about the usefulness of DRV appeals should be discussed with the editors who pointed to this venue. I don't want any "changes". I request review of imo bad admin decisions. 24.103.251.114 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2021 (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.

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.

---

Thank you. I just want to make clear that the request was rejected on the basis of a "humorous non-binding essay". One question: where do you see presumably malicious or underhand "proxy hopping"? 64.18.9.192 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Next bus stop: arbcom, then jimbo talk. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think screaming into the void is more likely to bring about the result the OP seeks, but yeah, feel free to do those too... --Jayron32 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't there a subreddit for this? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad you dropped by... could you shed some light on your allegations of proxy-hopping? You must have missed the question posted above. 64.61.6.122 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2021 (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.

Rascal Flatts

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.

---

Can I get some more eyes on Rascal Flatts? A couple of varied IP editors are hell-bent on changing every instance of "country" to "country rock", even in contexts like "Hot Country Songs chart" and "Country Weekly magazine". The page has been semi-protected multiple times, but the editors keep flocking to vandalize it literally seconds after the protection expires. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 22 May 2021 (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.

Remove IRC from the ways to contact oversight on this page's edit notice

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editnotice, IRC should be removed from the ways to contact oversight due to the ongoing Freenode shenanigans. I have also made an edit request on the talkpage, but I reported it here because it is highly important. dudhhr 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed link. Hope you don't mind. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The "connect" link seems ok - goes to the irc.libera.chat page. — Ched (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (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.

Erroneously archived ANI discussion

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

---

This edit archived an ongoing discussion about a user's conduct. I've seen several other threads archived by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) without conclusion, but I'm not sure what they were. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've un-archived it below and marked this not to be archived for 2 weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

JsfasdF252 creating unhelpful pages, attempting to make subpages of articles

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JsfasdF252 is consistently creating unhelpful pages, mostly related to templates and modules. They have also repeatedly attempted to make subpages of articles by moving single-use templates or unilaterally splitting off sections. Here's a rundown of the warnings on their user talk page:

Extended content

Category:Wikipedia editcopies: Tagged for speedy deletion per C1, then unilaterally redirected to Category:Wikipedia article sandboxes by JsfasdF252. Template:Sandbox heading/Talk/doc: Useless documentation deleted by TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_25#Template:Sandbox_heading/Talk/doc) after a contested G2. Template:Fake red link: Brought to TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_24#Template:Fake_red_link), then moved to userspace by JsfasdF252 after a nomination per G4. Template:Many images: A tag warning about a large number of images possibly slowing loading the page; redirected to Template:Too many photos after a TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_27#Template:Many_images). An edit on Talk:Main Page where JsfasdF252 changed all the links to {{Direct link}}. They also made a similar change at Atom. Template:Direct link: It is unclear what this did, but it was deleted per G7 at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_18#Template:Direct_link. I think the aim of this template was to replace internal links with external links so as to prevent the existence of red links, or something along those lines. JsfasdF252 applied it very indiscriminately, see Special:Diff/994814036/994875306. User:GKFXtalk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) SP:Random: A non-standard shortcut to Special:Random; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#SP:Random. A complaint about an RfD for COVID-19 Pandemic because searches are not case-sensitive, which violated precedent. MOS:N: A shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability, which is not in the Manual of Style. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_2#MOS:N. A notification about creating pseudo-namespace redirects. Annoyingsville: Speedy deleted per G3. Warning about misuse of {{only}} in articles, such as in this edit at Greenland. Warning about inappropriate deletion tagging, though misidentifed as CSD tagging, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.127.189.75. No such action: Speedy deleted per G2. Warning about an unapproved change of font to <code> in {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, regarding this edit at Cmd.exe and this edit at CONFIG.SYS. Relation (OpenStreetMap): Origianlly a soft redirect to an external site, osmwiki:Relation; retargeted to OpenStreetMap#Data format following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#Relation_(OpenStreetMap). Baraque: An ambiguous misspelling that redirected to Baroque; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Baraque. Template:Oppo and Template:Supp: Templates intended for adding "support" and "oppose" comments in discussions, which is common in other wikis but against consensus here. Speedy deleted per G4. A warning about splitting a large section in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to an attempted subpage COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Responses. This edit was made twice, by the way. Template:/Subdivisions: An attempt to implement support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_10#Template:/Subdivisions. Americas/Subdivisions: An attempt at a subpage of Americas, which was moved from Template:Subdivisions of the Americas. It was moved back, and this page was speedy deleted per R3. COVID-19 pandemic/Epidemiology: Presumably an attempt at a subpage at COVID-19 pandemic; speedy deleted per R3. A complaint about moving Table of keyboard shortcuts to Keyboard/shortcuts. The move was reverted, and the new title was speedy deleted per R3. NCAA Cheerleading Competition/row: Yet another attempted article subpage (of NCAA Cheerleading Competition); moved from Template:NCAA ClC/row and then speedy deleted per R3 after revert. StarKid Productions/Cast: Moved from Template:StarKid Productions Cast. Template:/row: Another attempt at adding support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_16#Template:/row. Template:Uw-split: A user warning that did not comply with WP:SPLIT; retooled during a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_24#Template:Uw-split. Jews-non-Aryans: An ambiguous redirect to Final Solution with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_17#Jews-non-Aryans. Brutality-killing: An ambiguous redirect to Violence with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#Brutality-killing. New Jersey–New York relations: A misleading and inaccurate redirect to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_26#New_Jersey–New_York_relations. Australasian relations: A redirect to Australia–New Zealand relations. Kept at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_5#Australasian_relations, despite concerns about being overly broad. A warning about an ANI report for breaking things by moving templates to subpages of articles, such as Template:Infobox actinium isotopes to Isotopes of actinium/infobox. The report is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Bad_move_by_JsfasdF252, which was closed after the page in question was moved back. U.S. state (disambiguation): Speedy deleted per G14. List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics/Season-end No. 1 skaters: Attempted subpage of List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics; speedy deleted per A10. Warning about unilateral article splits, such as Special:Diff/1015135242 at List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics. Template:Hong Kong: One of six "hybrid templates" that displayed as a navbox on articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_31#Template:Hong_Kong. A warning about archiving old April Fools' nominations. Didn't find a diff about this one. Module:Delimited tag: Redundant to native Lua functions and Module:Separated entries; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_3#Module:Delimited_tag. Brilliant brown: Redirect to Orange (colour) from an implausible synonym; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Brilliant_brown. Template:IN: Sole purpose was to add "in country X" to articles, which was unnecessary beyond what was already in {{CountryPrefixThe}}. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_6#Template:IN. Category:Hybrid templates: Probably intended to hold templates that combine different functionalities in different namespaces, which is confusing and against consensus in the Hong Kong TfD. Nominated for speedy deleted per C1, then de-tagged after it became populated. Blue trucks: Speedy deleted per R3; used as an intentional red link in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Template:Software: A "hybrid template" that produced an infobox in articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_12#Template:Software. Module:Delimited tag: Speedy deleted per G4. Template:A: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Pagetype. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Template:A. Category:Bilateral relations of U.S. states: Inaccurate categories nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Bilateral_relations_of_U.S._states. Bilateral relations are only between sovereign states, and most of the items in these categories would never be considered bilateral relations. Another speedy nomination Category:Hybrid templates per C1, which was successful this time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Afar translation: A soft redirect to the incubator wiki for a dead Wikipedia in the Afar language; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Afar_translation. Template:Back: Yet another attempt to provide support for subpages of articles; nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Template:Back. A {{uw-disruptive2}} warning that warns JsfasdF252 to stop editing in the template and module namespaces. Template:Tc:: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Title case; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Tc:. Template:Filename: Misleading redirect to Template:Samp; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Filename. A warning about this ANI report.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There are other serious issues with this editor's contributions that aren't mentioned in the list above, e.g. Retargeting decade old redirects with hundreds of backlinks with no discussion or explanation ([42] [43] [44]) some completely bizarre retargeting of redirects ([45]), Hijacking templates to add weird and useless functionality ([46] [47]) mucking around in other people's pages and archives for no real reason other than to use whatever templates they've just created ([48] [49] [50] [51]) and converting dab pages into plain redirects ([52]). Most of this seems to be motivated by some kind of belief that we need to make the wikicode size of pages as small as possible through templates and splitting ([53] [54]) but their contributions are disruptive, and I think a WP:CIR block is required. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• JsfasdF252 doesn't seem keen to listen to advice or consensus; after Direct link was deleted, they recreated it (Template:Direct link) as a redirect to a template that could be used for the same purpose and created another redirect to it this week (Template:Static link). I'm tempted to say that both of those should be WP:G4 given the unanimous and firm requests for deletion shown at the original TfD. That would not be their only G4. Another of their so-called "hybrid" templates was at Template:Only (the user warning template) which they tried to make into a {{fix}}-based template displaying like ""; they self-reverted that but only after the warning mentioned above about inserting it into pages. I would agree with a blocktopic ban initially; it all just wastes time. User:GKFX^talk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've run into this user various times, as you can see above. I do think they're here in good faith, so I would support a topic ban from splitting articles, creating redirects, and editing template- and module-space (perhaps for six months?) If they're interested in contributing, there are still many ways they can, such as writing articles - and I hope they get the change and choose to do so! Elli (talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I recall there was a user exhibiting almost exactly these behaviors that we subsequently banned, though I can't recall the name. Regardless, I left a warning about the behaviors exemplified in this thread in the past few weeks, a request that has seemingly gone ignored. I honestly support an indefinite block and/or a namespace block from anything but the mainspace + interesting talk spaces. --Izno (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone? :( Izno (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I read consensus correctly, it is for topic ban for everything except for talk pages (because they have issues at the very least in the main space, template, and category namespace). Unless there are objections, I am going to implement this shortly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  After reviewing the collapsed content and my previous comment, that would be fine with me. Izno (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (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.

@Ymblanter: Did you mean "now be enforcing"? -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for noticing. Already enforced.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: talked with this user off-Wiki - would you mind unblocking them from the User namespace? I don't think they've been disruptive there, and they wanted the ability to work in their user sandbox. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, will do this. I do not think they have problems there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Systematic deletion flags, flag templates and additional information (blocking edits)

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.

---

Flag icons in articles are still being removed by someone. In the several articles about the Crusades (Fifth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, Seventh Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Lord Edward's crusade, Alexandrian Crusade, Smyrniote crusades etc.), flag icons are systematically removed by RandomCanadian, including the information (participants, commanders, etc.) that I added there. There is no permission nor a consensus to do this. It is against flag icons and country data flag templates, which are therefore unused, but it is also against Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, because removing additional information means keeping only basic data which are not very useful. I also can't edit articles when my edits are reverted and everything I've added there. I used this information here after reading it in other articles. They have been deleted here, including flag icons, which I consider to be vandalism. My edits are historically correct and there is no reason to be systematically deleted and blocked. Dragovit (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Coats of arms in infoboxes which was closed inconclusively, however this was followed by a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole which aside from Dragovit appears to be essentially unanimously for such removals. Dragovit, can you explain why you do not consider the MOS:FLAG discussion to have reached consensus for the icon removals? (This situation has previously been discussed on AN at /Archive332#Bludgeoning and refusal to listen on a WP:DSTOPICS subject and /Archive331#Infoboxes, flags, et cetera.) CMD (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If I hadn't supported the near-unanimous decision at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole, I would have blocked Dragovit for obvious disruptive editing. The consensus is very obviously against coats of arms icons in infoboxes, and any attempt to restore or add them after being told multiple times not to do so should be considered disruptive. If the opening party does not undo the addition of coats of arms as a demonstration of good faith, then I support a block. DrKay (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I often revealed contradictions in these discussions and efforts to delay the issue from being resolved. If you have read these discussions, you have certainly noticed that most of the comments on my arguments are off topic. The arguments were ignored. Only in the Second Crusade talkpage revealed that the heraldic flags/banners and coats of arms are probably anachronistic for this historical period as well as earlier times, so I'm not changing anything here, but RandomCanadian took it that way, that he can automatically erase them all in the articles of the whole category, even if the articles relate centuries later. Other arguments about the disruptive effect of these elements cannot be taken seriously, they are doubtful, because are based on feelings and assumptions. If they were disruptive and unsuitable for use, they would never be created. There is no permission or consensus on the systematic deletion of all flag icons, flag icon templates and icon-images, it can be vandalism. There is also no reason to delete additional information and keep only basic data. The removal of icons was seen as an opportunity to remove entire lists of belligerents and commanders, for which there is no reason and it is unacceptable. Dragovit (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is very clearly in favour of removal. We understand that you don't agree with the consensus, as most editors disagree with consensus sometimes, but that is the way things are decided here, and editing against it is disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about consensus, I did not notice. I don't think it happened. In addition, the consensus was to cover only one article which is the Second Crusade, not all the articles about Crusades. So if there is a consensus, it is obviously a violation of it, because other articles have not been discussed. This is illogical because other articles about the Middle Ages normally use icons and flag icon templates which were therefore created. These interventions against them are simply arbitrary interventions and have no justification. I will not discuss these things now, because there are obvious attempts at delays and offtopic comments and until an administrator sees and judges. Dragovit (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion leading to the consensus, posting at great length there, so don't claim that you didn't notice it or that it was about only the Second Crusade, when it was clearly about all articles, as all are subject to the Manual of Style. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can claim it, of course no consensus was reached, because the issue was not discussed and most of the posts are off-topic, the main arguments were ignored, so nothing was resolved there. Only the appropriateness of some phrases was discussed, nothing more, how absurd to say that there was a consensus when the topic was repeatedly changed and attention was diverted elsewhere. Do not claim that any one consensus can determine the nature and appearance of the entire Wikipedia, because the rules and manuals have not changed. In addition no consensus can decide to ban someone's editing and delete the content he/she wrote. No one in the consensus can forbid me from creating flag icon Country data templates and adding them such as other images to articles. It's all absurd, but especially it's arbitrary restrictions against me. Dragovit (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it very strange that lots of people are referring to heraldic crests as flags! Technically, they are not flags, so why are people treating them the same as flags! :/ I personally don't support the removal, they provide information. And really, they are not doing any damage to an article. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that a lot of users commonly use flag icons and other icons (coats of arms, seals, emblems etc.) for infoboxes although they did not participate in any discussions about suitability of their use, so unfortunately almost no one supported me in the discussion here either. Obviously, those who took part in the discussions were definitely not the majority and everything was done to only opponents would participate, I can't explain it. Therefore, it's necessary for any administrator to decide on this matter. Dragovit (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block Dragovit. The responses here are inadequate and this is the third time this issue has been raised on this noticeboard. He is obviously editing against consensus, has shown no indication that he will edit within consensus and has admitted that he going to ignore consensus. DrKay (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• @DrKay: Has there been an established consensus? I see supports for one, but that conversation isn't yet closed, so are we technically going to block someone from editing an article for a consensus which hasn't yet been established? The same is versa, removing the heraldic's before the consensus has been enacted. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• See the link above, which I will relink here for you: [55]. In a discussion which was active for 2 weeks, 16 out of 17 people decided that there was consensus to remove these uses of coats-of-arms. Sorry you missed it. Even considering your feelings here, that would now bring us to 16 out of 18 people. That's still a really strong consensus to remove them. --Jayron32 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I just posted there, I didn't know about it before, I've put my oppose down! Can't see it making much difference at the moment, but it isn't closed there is no {{abot}} so... :/ Govvy (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Formal closes are not needed for RfCs, further, could you please explain your assertion that the discussion in question was forum shopped? CMD (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Posted here, posted there! Basically because Dragovit posted here, and it caught my eye, I call that forum-shopping. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, just because you call it that, doesn't make it so. You're wrong. --Jayron32 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support block for both IDHT and CIR (the C standing for both "collaboration" and the other meaning here...). The only forum-shopping I see is by Dragovit trying to overturn a consensus which they don't like (and coming on my talk page to repeat me once more how they disagree with it). I've put in a request at AN/RFC for closure. Edit: and now the comments below... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  They are now refusing to back down from their personal attack below... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have a problem with a more limited sanction such as a topic ban, per Buidhe and others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And is there a some reason to block me? I can't be blocked just because I want to solve this issue. You can never succeed with this. Have you dealt with my arguments? Of course not. You should be blocked because you are vandalized several articles directed against me. It is absurd to suggest a block for a user (me) who has created order in so many articles because it is your wish and because I write comments that do not fit. Dragovit (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block RandomCanadian. This user has committed vandalism in several articles and continues to do so, although he has been warned several times that no consensus has been reached. There's no reason to block me, but there's a few reasons to block RandomCanadian. He turned several articles with pictures into vague plain text, can you call it a benefit? I would say no. He ruined my work that lasted for hours! Not just my work, because the icons were in the articles before I started editing for the first time! If a lesser consensus has been reached somewhere, it certainly didn't apply to all Wikipedia articles as he claims. Removing images of icons I have entered (and not only me) including additional information not only harms me, but permanently harms Wikipedia. He arbitrarily doing what he wants and should I be blocked for opposing it? I've been editing Wikipedia for many years and I've never encountered this and I'm surprised that I'm presented here as the culprit by some users with whom I have never cooperated or discussed. Dragovit (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:NOTVAND, read the linked discussion where there is clear consensus (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole), and then also First law of holes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  "I'm surprised that I'm presented here as the culprit by some users with whom I have never cooperated or discussed" is what you can expect from a report at ANI (see WP:BOOMERANG. As to "never discussed", you've clearly had past interactions with me and other users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Coats of arms in infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole. This is a collaborative project, and you are failing to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  In this you are "successful" in pointing out someone's mistakes, but you are still writing only off-topic comments and it is clear that you are not interested in a solution. Your interventions against flag icons are based only on your concept of aesthetics and nothing more. They have nothing to do with factual arguments which you didn't present in any of those discussions, these your comments are of course available there and everyone can read them and see that they are nonsensical and off-topic. Of course, you did not forget to make all the flag removal edits, even if this issue has not been solved yet. Dragovit (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that by now Dragovit's editing here has shown an inability to cooperate with others to the extent compatible with editing Wikipedia, so it looks like a block is needed. All comments that do not agree precisely with Dragovit's opinion are repeatedly characterised as off-topic, which they are very obviously not. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Dragovit from flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, to be enforced in the usual way (with escalating blocks). The disruption has gotten out of hand and this editor just doesn't know when to stop. I'm not against indef block either at this point. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: So when I write that someone repeatedly blocks my edits and deletes the common features so what is not true about that? That's why I have to deal with it and ask for support of the community again. Should I be blocked for requesting this case? Dragovit (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you get blocked or otherwise sanctioned, it will be for disruptively rejecting the consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Close the coats-of-arms loophole. CMD (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You're wrong, there is no real consensus here. It's just a vote of random users who took part in it, even though they had no interest in its outcome. They only expressed their opinion there, although it is against the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rules, which say how to use flag icons. These voters probably didn't read the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG neither discussion WikiProject Military history nor my arguments there, so this was certainly not a consensus, also the MOS rules have not changed. In general a consensus is the result of some debate, which this is definitely not, this is just an anonymous vote and therefore I cannot be blocked for something that does not exist. Dragovit (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I expect that there will be consensus here that there was consensus there, and this reply is a decent example of the sanction reason I mentioned. CMD (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I don't care any pitiful threats and seriously no idea why you're participating here. I think it's concise to say that you're just another person who writes off-topic comments and have nothing to say about the issue. Do you want social justice? I think you're just looking for conflicts. Dragovit (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban of Dragovit from flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, to be enforced in the usual way (with escalating blocks), per Buidhe. - Donald Albury 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban of Dragovit from the areas listed; they clearly are not interested in discussion nor collaboration.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Donald Albury:, @Mr.choppers: No, if I am not interested in discussion and cooperation, then I am not writing here. Everyone can read my comments and find out that what you write about me isn't true. This issue was originally about history (the articles concerned are about Middle Ages, I mentioned them in the first comment 09:35, 7 May 2021) and I was expecting historical facts and arguments, but this didn't happen even though I asked for it and it's quite unrighteous that I should be blocked for that. If the conclusions of the discussion were satisfactory, I would have no problem accepting them. I think this is a misunderstanding. Ban isn't necessary, because I decided not to continue with this matter, even though I am convinced of the correctness of my view. If I caused complications, I apologize to everyone for that. Everything I did was not done with the intention of doing harm to anyone or doing damage to the articles. If you want to see for yourself, you can look at my whole history of edits and probably won't find anything suspicious or bad. I have nothing to hide. If you look at the history of my editing or history of edits of those articles, you will notice that I was the propably essential author of extensive lists in the infoboxes created by me years ago. You can verify it. When I wanted to add something again, including some add-ons like flag icons or minor fixes, it was deleted (- thousands of added points) by the user RandomCanadian without explanation and only the basic data were left, nor was it explained in the discussions mentioned here. It's therefore illogical that it is I who is to be sanctioned when my edits have always been positive and beneficial. I'm very sorry it came this so far. Dragovit (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  "If the conclusions of the discussion were satisfactory, I would have no problem accepting them." The only person to whom they are not satisfactory is you. Your repeated additions after the discussion at the MOS page was closed show either that you are not willing to abide by the discussion's result, or else that you do not comprehend how disputes are resolved here. In either case, you should stop arguing about that since everybody except you has moved on to something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not satisfactory, because from the beginning it was supposed to be about history, the whole thing was about historical articles. However, this didn't happen. There are a lot of history questions I would like to ask, but there was no opportunity, for example why coats of arms were left in the 7th Crusade, when in others they had to be removed, or why important personalities (rulers, leaders) had to be removed from the list of commanders such as Albert IV of Habsburg (Barons' Crusade), both seem illogical to me, but it's clear to me that I will not get any answer about that. The "consensus" that I call voting of random people was done by users who obviously never saw these articles and didn't check what changes were made there. I see this whole matter has gone awry in an attempt to silence me, it has nothing to do with righteous punishment, now it's just about hostility, demonstrating power, hatred and discrimination, no discussion about history, facts and arguments, it's a big disappointment for me because this is about the global internet encyclopedia and this is too primitive. You deal with what I said, but not why I said it, you just take my words out of context, and present yourself as the one who is right. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and I've done ten thousand edits and I've never been blocked. no dispute has ever escalated like this. Anyone can verify that I am an exemplary user who has given a lot of free time to Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban on Dragovit and oppose sanctions on RandomCanadian. It seems like things have only recently become heated, and it might be best to let the situation cool off. I'm generally hesitant to recommend an indefinite (topic) ban on someone except when they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I don't think that is the case absolutely here, though the editor is clearly engaged in repeated editing against consensus. Perhaps a 3 month topic ban on flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols would be appropriate for now and would allow for time to cool off on the matter. An indef ban would certainly be justified if the user engages in ban evasion or if the user's behavior continues on this trajectory after the topic ban elapses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Unfortunately, you present this matter simplified as it's presented to you, but originally, the issue was about historical coats of arms and banners (flag icons and flag icon templates) of medieval states in several articles about the Crusades. It was also about the additional content I added. So I don't understand what exactly the ban on flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols should solve? What damage I did has not yet been described. First, let someone tell what damage I have done to have such punishment. It was my content that was deleted without explanation. You've probably read that I do editing in spite of consensus, but the "consensus" was made by random users who were not familiar with the content of these articles and it took place in a separate discussion. They decided on something in general without dealing with the articles and despite what the rules MOS:INFOBOXFLAG rules say how the flag icons are to be used, the added content was not discussed. Propably no one has verified from the edit history in those articles what who added/deleted and that I was the primary author of the content of infoboxes (belligerents, commanders) who spent a lot of time by editing. If the discussion took place regularly about history as it should and if my words were not taken out of context, this discussion would never escalate and we would not be here now. Very sad and pitiable that several users supported my blocking without finding out what this matter was about. Dragovit (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Dragovit: Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I understand that, but what should I do if someone keeps me from editing? This obstructions must end immediately. The consensus (which is often referred to) is related to flag icons, but it can't stop me from editing in general. The edits in which there is something else cannot be reversed due to the consensus on flag icons. Dragovit (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dragovit: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Anyway what do you mean by "someone keeps me from editing"? If someone breaks into your house to stop you from editing, you need to call the police.

  Otherwise I don't understand what you mean by "keeps me from editing". This discussion was about blocking you. If the community or an admin decides your behaviour in relation to the flag dispute was enough to justify a block, then the only thing you can do is to appeal it if you feel it is unjustified. Speaking generally, it's definitely possible for an editor's behaviour in relation to a dispute to be bad enough to justify a block or community site ban. While we try to limit restrictions if we feel that would deal with the problem, sometimes behaviour is bad enough that we feel it won't help. I make no comment on whether your behaviour crossed over that line but if the community or an admin decides that you either have to successfully appeal or accept you're currently unwelcome.

  If someone disagrees with your edits and reverts you, then as always, you need to discuss on the page talk page and come to WP:Consensus about your changes. If you can't come to consensus, then use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. While it's complicated, per WP:BRD and other stuff, it's often not unreasonable for an editor to revert a change of yours if they feel it's not an improvement, so an editor reverting you often isn't doing anything wrong, they're not "keeps me from editing", they're just disagreeing with a change your trying to make which they're probably entitled to do. Note if consensus for your changes is persistently against you, and you keep pursuing this trying to get a different result, or keep trying to make changes or starting discussions when it should be clear consensus will be against your changes then it's likely your editing that is the problem. And this might be why editors were discussing a full block.

  If an editor persistently reverts you but then refuses to discuss, by which I mean you start a discussion and they don't join it, then you can potentially bring a complaint. To be abundantly clear, this needs to have happened often enough, and it needs to be clear the editor is refusing to discuss. You yelling at the other editor they need to discuss, while not having actually opened a page talk page discussion yourself, is not something you should bring a complaint about since you yourself have also failed to discuss. And mostly edit summaries, and often even editor talk page discussions, won't be taken as sufficient. Likewise there's generally no reason to complain if it happened once or twice. Also consider my earlier point. It may not be unreasonable for an editor to not really bother to discuss if you keep trying to make changes which clearly lack consensus.

  If you feel someone is persistently reverting your edits simply because they dislike you or are pursuing you, you can open a complaint about WP:Wikistalking, but I'd urge strong caution before doing so. You're likely to encounter some editors a lot because of shares interests, and likewise editors may often disagree with you because of a different view on how things should work here. Persistently meeting the same editor in a disagreement doesn't mean the editor is singling you out.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I just want to say about the introduction that "someone keeps me from editing" meant that as part of the reverting of flag icons, other changes were also returned that had nothing to do with them, also some of my comments or messages have been deleted on various talkpages due to duplication/Bludgeoning or else, then I couldn't discuss the topic with more users, so I have reason to think so, so the comparison with breaking into a house seems out of place to me. Then you say that I wanted to make some "own changes and trying to get a different result", but no, you're completely wrong and therefore your comment is not helpful, the situation was exactly the opposite. Flag icons and flagicon templates have been in articles for many years always and my edits have been in their defense, to keep them, because the removing them is a new change and a different result. I don't think I deserve to be blocked when I was defending something that worked for a long time and suddenly it is denied by someone. You are wrong about my interventions and also about the consensus, the truth is, that several users unfortunately in their one consensus have decided that all Wikipedia articles should become plain text without flag icons, because they consider icons as mere decorations that are disruptive. I thought that one vote could not change the whole of Wikipedia and therefore this discussion, but you and other users are probably saying that it works. Or do I misunderstand it? So I understand that only thing not considered decorations are the rectangular modern/western national flags propably from the 17th century to the present, so all the other older symbols (heraldic, dynastic, other cultures, ancient civilizations etc) were rejected and now are automatically removed although they were created for that purpose on Wikimedia Commons. So unfortunately, I wanted to prevent it, but I failed, I couldn't explain it clearly and defend the flag icons, or I misunderstood it and inserted the icons into the infoboxes unnecessarily, but I wasn't alone in doing it. They've been there before. Flag icons are used everywhere on Wikipedia in all languages, but only English has decided by consensus to go its own way? I do not get it. In any case obviously no one understands what it was all about. Neither do you, sorry, but your comment doesn't correctly describe my intentions and this situation. I don't want to discuss it with anyone anymore, because I see that no one is interested in these icons, it's useless or it doesn't work. Now we will have to get used to the lists in infoboxes being plaintext, with the exception of modern national flags, perhaps it is unfair that other forms of symbolism belonging to different cultures are not accepted, perhaps it could even be considered racist, when in colonial times only European/western symbols can be used, but this is probably definitive result of that alleged consensus of users who did not view the articles and read the entire discussion. Such a "consensus" does not deserve recognition, in my view, but and I will not comment further, this is how it ends and I have to adapt. Dragovit (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Dragovit, I strongly suggest you strike the comment above stating: perhaps it is unfair that other forms of symbolism belonging to different cultures are not accepted, perhaps it could even be considered racist as that comes across as a rather direct personal attack on those you oppose. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why is this still being discussed? It is an obvious case of an editor refusing to accept consensus, and doubling down when this is challenged by saying that the only "real" consensus is agreeing with everything that they say, rather than that of everyone else who disagrees. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Is it obvious on what basis? Where did I write that I do not respect consensus? No, I didn't write that. You take my words out of context and give them a different meaning. In these discussion in the last post I wrote considerations of what this could mean and you have interpreted it as disrespecting consensus and a personal attack, which is untrue both. So I will appeal, because ban seems to me unfounded. Dragovit (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you do not respect consensus is obvious from your behavior. (Of course no one expects you to announce it!) For example, you have just been topic-banned by a consensus but here you are still arguing about it. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Because there are some new unhelpful comments that do not describe my behavior and intentions exactly and they present me negatively, it's not just my business or behavior against the community, it's just a misunderstanding. I was still expecting support of the community, I rationally thought the community would side with flag icons and flag icon templates (country datas) which are a large number and which I modified and expanded over several years to maintain a uniform style of articles and it seems illogical to me that it's described differently only as my problem and misconduct, my reflections and opinions are desribed by you as arguing, which isn't true when I wrote that I respect consensus and didn't want to continue this discussion, then I say please stop, this is the last post I write here, nobody cares. Please remove all the flag icons and coats of arms images in all related articles to that no one else will make a misunderstanding like me. Dragovit (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic to the above: (Technical?) Issues with timestamps

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.

---

Can anybody figure whether stuff like this (posted at 15:03 UTC, but a time-stamp of 17:00 - see also the user's other recent edits) is A) a technical error or B) some form of user-chosen configuration or C) deception? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably a different time zone, I guess? That 17:00 is real time in my country (now 17:34 p.m.). To say that it can be "deception" can be considered as accusation or personal attack, I really don't need to cheat by changing the time, it's absurd really and another off-topic comment from you as always. Dragovit (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dragovit: your wikitext timestamps do not match the revision time stamps, so either there is a bug going on that we should look in to - or you have made some alterations to make something different get published. Can you confirm if you have done the later so we don't need to look in to this on the software side? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but you're right, that wikitext timestamps do not match the revision time stamp. One of the last comments inserted in 15:45 isn't the right time, the real time is 17:45 which I am inserting here. Dragovit (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you manually inputting your time stamps? All time stamps should be UTC. CMD (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dragovit: Are you signing your posts by using 4 tildes, or otherwise inserting the time using 5 tildes? Or are you in any other way inserting the time information such as by typing it in or by using some personal tool? All timestamps in discussion wikitext should match revision data, which is in the UTC timezone; such signature texts should not be "localized" in the stored text. To view converted times for your own convenience, there is a gadget available in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time) that you could use. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That is it, I manually inputting time stamps with the time that is displayed there, this is the right time for us here. I do it manually because I don't know how to do it differently. Of course, if it's wrong, I'll adjust. Dragovit (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2021

OK @Dragovit: thank you for confirming, so this isn't a "technical" problem - please review Wikipedia:Signatures, and do not manually enter times and dates; notably that you are entering a time - but also declaring a timezone that doesn't match the time also makes it inaccurate. Just use automatic timestamping as it will otherwise confuse other editors - but feel free to activate that gadget I mentioned which can help make everyone's timestamps look local for you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I thank you and I'm sorry, that didn't realize it, I'll fix it now. Dragovit (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021

@Dragovit: to be 100% clear the only appropriate fix here is to use timestamps that match the system time (very very very strongly suggest you use automatic timestamps) - not to omit or insert a TZ identifier. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand now. I got it right that I would use it "~~~~" which seems simple to me or do you mean something else? Dragovit (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

To be even clearer, you should simply put four tildes - "~~~~" without the double quotes - to provide your signature and a timestamp after each post. Nothing else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I intend to use this next time (and right now), thank you. I don't find it difficult. Dragovit (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That looks perfect. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It works easily without effort and complications. For a long time I inserted it awkwardly each time with obviously wrong time, now I know it. Dragovit (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you for listening and adjusting your actions Dragovit this sub-section is resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 7 May 2021 (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 backlog

At Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. The autopatrol queue was worse but I dealt with that a couple days ago. If anyone has a little time to spare today there's currently 19 requests, the oldest is 17 days old. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No longer back logged. Thanks @Anarchyte, Moneytrees, JJMC89, and ToBeFree:! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just randomly looked at the page and answered some requests. No problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Any AfD admins about?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom has been open for two weeks, without a close or relist. I can't do it as I !voted in the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: on it. GiantSnowman 10:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Editing: IP Info feature

Hi all,

Not sure if this was raised earlier on, say, VPT, but I missed the March update and I'm pretty closely tied into the IP masking stuff.

IP Editing: IP Info feature is about making some information about IPs readily summarised without use of a Lookup function. It's not clear (to me, at least) whether this particular step conceals any information.

I've put it here, rather than say WP:VPW (where I may note it as well) given its relevance to conduct. I'll also cross-post to WT:SPI. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

So the location/ISP is limited to "Admin / CheckUser" (because it's deemed sensitive? But you can get the same info by pasting the IP into a geolocation tool, or just clicking the link at the bottom of the contribs page), but "Number of users on IP" is deemed low risk and available to all (currently only available to CUs with a valid reason to check)? ProcSock (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Venue guidance

I would like to ask if this is the correct venue to request a review of administrator decisions. The particular item concerns an admin-reviewer's decision at WP:DRV. I have been in discussion with the admin in questions, but it seems that we are going in circles. Unless I am mistaken, there doesn't seem to be anyplace else to appeal a DRV close. Thank you. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@98.0.246.242: While this probably is the location, as it is reviewing what is already a reviewing process, it's going to have to be fairly clear fault in determining the consensus at DRV (NOT the original AfD) for the group here to be willing to consider assessing. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Should I submit the review request here, or at ANI? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Complaint

this is very bad how can you accept the false info in wikki, also you blocked my ID on editing. check the truth before accepting anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman Royal (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like it would be a good idea for an admin to have a look at Krishnadevaraya, where there's been a whole lot of edit warring over the past month or so. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

EFHR Closure

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin please attend to Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_Filter_Helper_for_Minorax? Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, not sure whether the discussion must be closed, or my notice is sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2021 (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.

Topic ban for HarrySime, for severely POV editing

It is time for someone besides Acroterion or me to step in and stop HarrySime from editing Dedan Kimathi and Mau Mau Uprising. HarrySime has been edit warring, albeit slowly, for quite a while now, and does so by making POV edits, altering (sourced) language, diminishing other points of view, and using obviously interested sources, particularly the book by Ian Henderson (police officer), a British colonial officer of, some might say, the worst kind. Please take a deep breath and bear with me.

Kimathi was one of the leaders of the Mau Mau Uprising against the British colonial oppressor; he was no saint, but rather a very complicated figure, as a quick scan of this, a chapter from Dedan Kimathi on Trial: Colonial Justice and Popular Memory in Kenya’s Mau Mau Rebellion (ed. Julie McArthur, Ohio State UP, 2017) makes clear. HarrySime, however, seems to see only one valuable source: Ian Henderson's The Hunt for Kimathi (also Man Hunt in Kenya), an interesting but essentially partial account, since Henderson was in service of the British colonial power and is the man credited with chasing down Kimathi, who was hung expeditiously after a quick trial. Their love for Henderson is probably first exhibited here, and you see it here also. I don't mind him being cited, but it should be done with proper context: Henderson should not be cited for facts represented in Wikipedia's voice. (You can find a very friendly review of Henderson's book here--written by an apparent CIA agent who includes himself as an actor in the fight against Mau Mau...)

Worse, HarrySime insists on inserting editorial commentary, here, "but fails to cite any contemporary British government documents which support this assertion"--HarrySime is commenting on Frank Furedi's 1989 book The Mau Mau War in Perspective (published by James Currey/Heinemann/Ohio UP), quite inappropriately, and does it again here. The same phony argument, about the need to cite British government sources, is found here--as if those essentially partisan somehow they should balance out an academic book.

HarrySime's editorializing is perhaps at its highest level in this edit, where they changed sourced text from "concentration camps and emergency villages" (that is, camps run by the British, who at one point rounded up 30,000 Kikuyu people in camps to undercut support for Mau Mau--see the CIA review) to "fortified villages", and again adds "but fails to cite a source for that figure." And let's note that he edits the language, and comments upon, the memoir by Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman, the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace prize.

If one single edit exemplifies their editing, it's this one (a revert falsely marked as a revert of vandalism--the vandal, then, is User:Acroterion--HarrySime does this frequently, but can't find their way to the talk page to explain why an obvious POV source should be highlighted), which in Wikipedia's voice marks all Mau Mau as blooddrinking cannibalistic terrorists, and Kimathi is nothing more but a tyrannical leader who killed more of his own people than the British did. I think that all this is sufficient for a topic ban for Mau Mau, Kenya, and Kimathi, very broadly construed. One could go through his other edits (the whitewashing of Roman Polanski, for instance), but for now I just want this person to stop recolonizing these articles. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is a topic ban enough? This feels like more than just POV-pushing -- there's also the edit-warring and personal attacks, and it seems like this editor isn't problematic only at Mau Mau/Kenya/Kimathi. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Community topic bans mean some heavy lifting by the community and take some time, as we know. To go on with, while awaiting discussion of Drmies's proposal, I have partial-blocked the user from Mau Mau Uprising and Dedan Kimathi for three months. Also, I support an indefinite topic ban from Mau Mau, Kenya, and Kimathi, very broadly construed, as per the proposal. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen, I saw your partial block, and thånk you for it. Yes, this might take a bit of time, so this is appreciated; they edit in spurts, it seems. Valereee, I thought I'd go for the low-hanging fruit--low-hanging because I'd already done some of the legwork on my own talk, and because I've seen it up close. Yes, I think there is more, but an indefinite topic ban from these areas is what I am looking for at a minimum. Other editors may want to add to this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I also endorse an indefinite topic ban to cover the Mau Mau Rebellion, Dedan Kimathi, and related subjects, construed broadly. This is based on their focus on a single partisan source and HarrySimes's unresponsiveness, other than to claim that those who disagree are vandals. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban on the Mau Mau movement, Dedan Kimathi, and all related topics including anything having to do with Kenyan independence, very broadly construed. Thanks to Drmies for doing the work to document the need for this topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Harry Sime HarrySime (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC) responds:

Apologies for delays, due to COVID.

Topic ban for HarrySime, for severely POV editing

It is time for someone besides Acroterion or me to step in and stop HarrySime from editing Dedan Kimathi and Mau Mau Uprising. HarrySime has been edit warring, albeit slowly, for quite a while now, and does so by making POV edits,

POV edites are point of view , IE opinion. Statements supported by citations are statements supported by citations. Not the same.

altering (sourced) language, 

I think you a refering to the fact the academic who declared that the British govt had a policy of 'divide and rule' did not have any supporting contemporary British govt documents. That's means its speculation.

diminishing other points of view,

and using obviously interested sources, particularly the book by Ian Henderson (police officer), a British colonial officer of, some might say, the worst kind. 

The fact that published source contradicts various unsourced hagiographies of Kimathis is of no consequence to Wikipedia

Please take a deep breath and bear with me.

Kimathi was one of the leaders of the Mau Mau Uprising against the British colonial oppressor; he was no saint, but rather a very complicated figure,

Has someone removed your edits every time you stated that Didan Kimathi was 'complicated' ? ('complicated is usually a euphemism for something, like 'flawed' ). Has someone claimed 'Didan Kimathi was a simple figure' ?

as a quick scan of this, a chapter from Dedan Kimathi on Trial: Colonial Justice and Popular Memory in Kenya’s Mau Mau Rebellion (ed. Julie McArthur, Ohio State UP, 2017) makes clear. HarrySime, however, seems to see only one valuable source: Ian Henderson's The Hunt for Kimathi (also Man Hunt in Kenya), an interesting but essentially partial account, since Henderson was in service of the British colonial power and is the man credited with chasing down Kimathi, who was hung expeditiously after a quick trial.

Ian Henderson participated in events and wrote his memoirs. So what ?

Their love for Henderson is probably first exhibited here, and you see it here also.

"Their love for Henderson" Who is 'they' ? Please cite full text 'love' for Henderson.

I don't mind him being cited, but it should be done with proper context: Henderson should not be cited for facts represented in Wikipedia's voice. (You can find a very friendly review of Henderson's book here--written by an apparent CIA agent who includes himself as an actor in the fight against Mau Mau...)

Worse, HarrySime insists on inserting editorial commentary, here, "but fails to cite any contemporary British government documents which support this assertion"--HarrySime is commenting on Frank Furedi's 1989 book The Mau Mau War in Perspective

" HarrySime is commenting on Frank Furedi's 1989 book The Mau Mau War in " No - I'm not commenting on the book. I point out, make clear a fact about the book: The the author does not have British govt documents which support his assertion.

1) "Aliens landed on earth" <ref cite="von Daniken"> 2) "Aliens landed on earth" states von Daniken <ref cite="von Daniken"> but von Daniken fails to cite any evidence that Aliens landed on earth. Both (1) and (2) are the same statement but (2) includes a fact about von Daniken's statement These are not the same statements and the two statements have a different value. A reader reading statement one may conluded that Aliens landed on Earth. A reader reading statement (2) has an accurate reflection of the facts. What von Danikan claimed and what happened are two different things separated by -evidence- The same applies to "Divide and Rule". Unless you have British F&C office documentation from the time, you have only speculation. (published by James Currey/Heinemann/Ohio UP), quite inappropriately, and does it again here. The same phony argument, about the need to cite British government sources, is found here--as if those essentially partisan somehow they should balance out an academic book.

HarrySime's editorializing is perhaps at its highest level in this edit, where they changed sourced text from "concentration camps and emergency villages" (that is, camps run by the British, who at one point rounded up 30,000 Kikuyu people in camps to undercut support for Mau Mau--see the CIA review) to "fortified villages", and again adds "but fails to cite a source for that figure."

Let's just note that there was no citation for the source of the claim and his claim was therefore as good as anyone elses. I note that you are unable to provide a source. You have to check all citations in academic work these days (sometimes just to check it exists) such is the general poor quality of academic work these days.

And let's note that he edits the language, and comments upon, the memoir by Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman, the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace prize.

If one single edit exemplifies their editing, it's this one (a revert falsely marked as a revert of vandalism--the vandal, then, is User:Acroterion--HarrySime does this frequently, but can't find their way to the talk page to explain why an obvious POV source should be highlighted), which in Wikipedia's voice marks all Mau Mau as blooddrinking cannibalistic terrorists, and Kimathi is nothing more but a tyrannical leader who killed more of his own people than the British did. I think that all this is sufficient for a topic ban for Mau Mau, Kenya, and Kimathi, very broadly construed. One could go through his other edits (the whitewashing of Roman Polanski, for instance), but for now I just want this person to stop recolonizing these articles. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

'recolonizing these articles' So it appears that the citations I provide contradict an agenda. Wonder what that agenda could be ?

Is a topic ban enough? This feels like more than just POV-pushing -- there's also the edit-warring and personal attacks,

" personal attacks," Yes there have been personal attacks made. Only one that I am aware of was made against me on my talk page (or the Didan Kimathi page or the Mau Mau talk page) and stated "...your not having it..." "continue to draw attention to ...(something about point of view)" and it seems like this editor isn't problematic only at Mau Mau/Kenya/Kimathi. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Harry Sime HarrySime (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC) concludes: So yes, there has been 'severe POV editing' (made by the people complaining). Yes there has been "personal attack(s)" (made on me) . And yes a topic ban is appropriate. For them.

Disinterested observers may like to wonder why these three have been removing citated statements. I am available to assist in making these observations should anyone ask. HarrySime (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relieving the title Clovia

I would like to create the genus article of Clovia. Source: https://www.gbif.org/species/2016354 Please relieve this title--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to since looking at the deletion log the previous articles under that name were deleted as WP:G11 (pure advertisement or promotion) meaning the original deleted article was obviously about something else since that type of deletion wouldn’t make sense for an article about a genus.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1:  Done - quick stub created for you to expand (forgive any technical errors). GiantSnowman 20:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Block IP Address request

Resolved

2A02:1812:1533:1D00:200E:E377:780F:C9E7 - Repeatedly trigged edit filter your known so? It's rose gold! (T?) 19:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a month as it seems to be a stable IP and they've been disruptive for a while. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked IP address

Hello

My address is blocked from making updates due to harassment but I’ve never tried to do anything in Wikipedia before - certainly not on this device or in this house! Please could you look into it and let me know.

Many thanks

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1485:D374:8097:E8B5:D5C9:5F56 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your IP addresses is just one of millions affected by this block, so you shouldn't take it personally. To the blocking admin - Johnuniq - did you mean to prevent account creation from this range? To the IP user, in the meantime, please see Template:Rangeblock for further explanation and instructions on creating an account, if you wish to use one. If you don't wish to create an account, this block should not affect you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, no I didn't plan to block account creation. I was asked at my talk about shifting IPs that were harassing a particular user and I partially blocked 2A01:4C8:1400:0:0:0:0:0/40 from the user and talk page concerned for one year, with the defaults. I have now modified the block to allow account creation. I don't understand how the reporting IP (2A01:4C8:1485:D374:8097:E8B5:D5C9:5F56) would know they had been "blocked from making updates due to harassment" unless they had tried to create an account (is that "making updates"?) or tried to edit the user/talk page concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think when potentially dealing with non-experienced users, one should usually use a very broad interpretation of terminology. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Userspace hoaxes by User:Odnailro

Hello. I came across this user while clearing out Category:Stale userspace drafts. I noticed that this user has a lot of stale drafts, so I looked at some of them to see if any already exists in mainspace. The ones I checked are User:Odnailro/Interkids Festival 2019, User:Odnailro/Youth Music Battle 2017, User:Odnailro/Jackie Simons, User:Odnailro/Interkids USA and User:Odnailro/Wanderlust (cartoon). Searching in Google, I was not able to find any sources for any of these drafts.

For the 2019 Interkids Festival, no results were found that this was aired on Teletoon in Canada and Discovery Family in the United Statese. Likewise, no hits for "Dancing with Rainicorns" by Chloe Woo, nor that she won Interkids USA in 2017. I also could not confirm Maverik Center in Salt Lake City, Utah held the Youth Music Battle in 2017 nor Jackie Simons is an American-Swedish singer who released an album called Tomma Bokstäver. Otherwise, I did not find any sources to confirm that Wanderlust was a Cartoon Network show, in development, or starred Zachary Gordon. Therefore, I believe these are all hoaxes. The Interkids ones are the most concerning as the drafts claim to have been running for multiple years (Interkids Festival 49 years, Interkids USA 3 years).

Checking this user's talk page, I notice that several of their userspace drafts were speedy deleted as hoaxes under G3. had one userspace draft deleted at MFD as a hoax, and had previously been brought to AN in March 2016 for their hoaxes. On their talk page, they did say they didn't mind their hoaxes being deleted when the AN discussion was opened in March 2016. However, all of their current userspace drafts were created from December 2016 to May 2020, including the 4 listed above. Finally, they has User:Odnailro/sandbox which I believe have hoax information as well. Google doesn't show any results for a party called the Movimento Popular da Felicidade led by Daniel Milošević. What convinces me the most as it says the party is against anti-wizardry. While the Dinis Rebellion does exist at 5 October 1910 revolution, I don't see confirmation that the Duke of Beja was crowned after that battle. If you compare the infobox in the article as well, there's a lot of differences as well, such as number of deaths, leaders, and party names.

Overall, I would like to know if these linked userspace drafts are indeed hoaxes and whether this user should be blocked for continuously making hoaxes. While I have only checked part of their 56 userspace drafts, this is concerning as this user was brought to AN 5 years ago for the same issue. If the Interkids Festival is a hoax for all of the years this user has created in userspace, then 51 of them alone are hoaxes about Interkids. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, hoaxes are not allowed in userspace. If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am also confident, having checked several of these drafts, that they are hoaxes and could probably be G3’d. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For someone who claimed five years ago "I am no longer interested on the hoaxes" {sic}, that's a lot of time creating hoaxes. Almost all edits are to perpetuate his WP:MADEUP material. Indeffed, I am now deleting these. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: @78.26: Thank you both for the quick responses :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of user:Possibly

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

---

This user is a trouble creator. First he said that i have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and so I have created a page. I disclosed that I have been paid by her to make a page for her. When he saw that everything was becoming normal again, he suddenly sent Annwesha Hazra for deletation, stating it is an advertisement. To the wiki admins I would like to say that there is not a single word in that page that says that it is an advertisement. But he is constantly saying that it is an avertisemnt.Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This user is disappointed that I AfD'd their paid editing work at Annwesha Hazra, and that it is now nearing deletion. In the past half hour they have reported me to 3RR, AIV, and here; the only possible reason being that they just started work in their time zone; we haven't interacted for about 24 hours. They've been causing havoc on multiple pages for the past day or so, mainly complaining. An SPI is open (checkuser needed) that will likely connect them with socks. Thy are being extremely disruptive, considering they're only here to edit that page and complain. Sigh.--- Possibly (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly:, Copyedit suggestion since it affects the meaning: "and that it is now nearing deletion"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks!--- Possibly (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Australian weapon has been spotted flying around, and Mynameisparitoshmandal has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was making spaghetti sauce with meatballs in the Instant Pot. I figured this would be taken care of by the time I was ready to sautee the peppers. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was actually enjoying the interactions at AfD and, guilty pleasure that it was, mildly regret the passing of Mynameisparitoshmandal as a result of Possibly's strange behaviour. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2021 (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.

Any Commons admins about?

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.

---

If there are any Commons admins about, would they please make their way to WP:MPE, where an issue has been raised which needs the attention of a Commons admin. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look now--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2021 (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.

Closure 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.

---

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the following RfC: Talk:Shusha#RfC - Displaying significant alternative name "Shushi" in boldface in the lead section noting that the article falls under the AA2 area. To me the discussion seems like policy vs tendentious arguments with a clear result but as an involved editor I don't get a say in that. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Creating a page for Lira Luis

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, I'd like to write an article on Lira Luis but when I try to do so, there is a message that creation of a page with this name is blocked due to previous creations in 2008 (the message is " this page is protected from creation"). How can I write this article? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary I imagine an administrator will be along to unprotect the page shortly, but for future reference: there are two steps to get a page un-protected. Firstly you should ask the admin who protected the page to lift the protection, if they're still active. If the admin isn't active or is unwilling to unprotect the page then as a second step you should post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level using the templates at the top of the page. For a creation protected title the instructions at WP:RFPP suggest that it is a good idea to have a draft article prepared in draft or userspace. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary, I've removed the protection so you can create the article. As you are an experienced editor, I don't believe the issues with the original article will now be appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for the quick responses, appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2021 (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.

Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE

On 14 February 2021‎, Solavirum was topic banned from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed. He had been misusing categories on several articles, adding Category:Armenian war crimes on several pages that had no sources for war crimes and just obviously weren't[56][57][58][59][60] and adding Category:Massacres of men and Category:Massacres of women on articles where people weren't targeted for their gender[61] (article has since been deleted). In addition, Solavirum also made a genocide denial comment about the Armenian Genocide: "a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". For those unfamiliar with the subject, blaming Armenians civilians for non-existent revolts is a common form of Armenian Genocide denial. Per WP:NORACISTS, this was a strong indicator that Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE.

Less than a month after being topic banned, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 for discussing the subject on his talk page and asking another user to make WP:PROXYING edits for him.[62][63] He was also given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). One week ago, Solavirum violated his topic ban again by writing "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels" on the Turkish War of Independence article,[64] in addition to several other edits on this Armenia related article and it's talk page. Solavirum was citing an unreliable source from infamous Armenian Genocide denier Justin McCarthy, including for claims of Turkish civilian deaths being over 42 times higher than what the previously cited source said. He not only violated his topic ban yet again, for which he was given another two week block, but also again showed that he is simply not here to help build an encyclopedia, just to push an WP:UNDUE agenda. --Steverci (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum has not edited since they have been blocked, and it is unclear why Steverci (who already complained about this decision previously, without success [65]) decided to bring this up. However, what Wikipedia certainly can benefit from is indefinite topic-ban of Steverci. They have already been topic-banned for years, unbanned recently after a successful AE appeal and, apparently, decided to get all their opponents topic-banned so that they can do whatever they want. They are currently edit-warring at Shusha [66] [67]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see now that Drmies, the blocking admin, advised them to come here [68]. I am however still of the opinion that it does not make sense to discuss Solavirum until they edit again, and that Steverci editing in the Armenian-Azerbaijani topics do not improve the encyclopedia. They clearly consider Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this at the suggestion of @Drmies: who said there should be separate discussions for topic ban violations and a user being NOTHERE. --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I suggested that because Steverci was a bit unhappy with the admittedly mild two-week block. I really don't have much of an opinion on the matter. I have not seen any evidence that Steverci is incapable of editing neutrally, and while I think they were a bit forward in pressing for a longer or more serious sanction, I don't think that this is some sort of vendetta, and I don't support a topic ban for them. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there's a pattern of Steverci filing enforcement requests in order to win a content dispute by getting banned editors he disagrees with. This is a frivolous enforcement case he flied on me after we had a disagreement: [69] Also, it would be good if admins checked his editing against consensus on BLP article about well known South Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal. Adding extremely partisan sources in criticism section without consensus at talk with other involved editors is not in line with WP:BLP rules. A third opinion at talk would also be appreciated. Grandmaster 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I deleted the entire section. It's possible that some of its content belongs at Black Garden, but accusations that he's distorting the truth and spewing propaganda are obviously in violation of BLP policy. The reviews section needs to be moved to the article on the book as well, if you'd be willing to do that, as it's not about him personally. Jr8825 • Talk 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your assistance with resolution of the problem with that article. I will move reviews to the article about the book, and will only mention that his book is award winning, and generally received positive reviews, if that's ok.

But that is not the only instance of POV editing and edit warring by Steverci. Please check his recent reverts at Shusha, mentioned by Ymblanter. The source Steverci refers to says: In an interview, Arkady Ter-Tatevosian, the Armenian commander who masterminded the capture of Shusha, blamed the burning of the town on aggrieved Armenian citizens living in neighbouring Stepanakert who had endured months of Azerbaijani shelling. "The [Armenian] Karabakhis have a very bad habit, a superstition, of burning houses, so the enemy cannot return". Steverci twice removed the part where it said that the houses were burned to prevent enemy population from returning, even though that's exactly what the source says, and he himself included that source, selectively quoting it. [70] [71] Please check his edit summaries, a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How acceptable is that? Steverci returned from the topic ban, but I do not see that his behavior changed significantly. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the edit summary and talk page, those are two conflicting reasons (aggrieved reaction or strategic superstition), and the source doesn't also mention them in the same sentence. It's also not encyclopdic to assume what the civilians could've been thinking, and is currently reads very awkwardly. De Waal is also not a great source to go into this much detail, because he is known both for his pro-Azeri bias and for selectively quoting interviews. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the enforcement case against you primarily because you made an edit falsely attributing the claims of two Turkish and Azeri analysts to the third-party source RFE/RL, and even referred to them as "RFE/RL experts" despite them having no affiliation. This was rather identical to how Solavirum was adding as many negative categories for Armenian articles as he could. In both cases, the user was either too preoccupied with their agenda to notice they were wrongly attributing something, or they just didn't care. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"but accusations that he's distorting the truth and spewing propaganda are obviously in violation of BLP policy." I doubt that. When historians or journalists are accused of distorting the truth, it is often part of a valid concern on historicity. That a book won awards does not mean it does not contain propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Please have a read of the only English source that was provided and tell me whether you think it meets WP:BLPRS, or whether it's just a nationalist rant. I suspect the these partisan sources were added to the biography in order to insert contentious labels and loaded language that disparage the man, so as to undermine editors citing his book elsewhere... do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources (my emphasis). His book is clearly highly thought of by mainstream academia (I looked through the reviews on JSTOR and in standard RS media, expecting to find that he was being held up by one faction of AA2 editors because his book favours their side... I didn't find anything, the reviews were all glowing and calling it the most important work on the conflict in recent years)... do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all, beware of ... biased, malicious ... content. I don't mean to insult you by quoting BLP at you, but yes, repeating a fringe viewpoint on a journalist's biography, that they're out to maliciously manipulate the truth and disguise their doing so, is a clear violation of BLP. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the reviews section of the book... if it gets past WP:FRINGE. Jr8825 • Talk 22:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Steverci

Per WP:BOOMERANG, Steverci is indefinitely topic-banned from Armenian-Azerbaijani topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• You base this proposal claiming I "decided to get all [my] opponents topic-banned", as if I had any power over that. Those were the decisions of other admins based on the actions of those users. I remember when I reported a user that was very obviously openly canvassing, you made a personal attack against me. Why have you been so hostile to me ever since my topic ban was removed? --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Because what you are doing is not improving an encyclopedia. You have clearly taken one side and promote the interests of this side does not matter what, treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're the one throwing around accusations like "They are interested in removing as many people as possible from the oppose party, and to bring there as many people from their own party, so that after several screens would have been written, no reasonably impartial user could join, and the discussion is doomed to be closed as not done. Or possibly not even closed, just archived at some point. This is the tactics used pretty much in all these discussions." I don't make this accusation lightly, but it seemed that you wanted to sanction me instead since months ago out of some personal issue. It's weird, because I had remembered you being fair and reasonable. I've been doing my best to edit a lot better since being unbanned, and have been doing a pretty good job despite editing in contentious topics. --Steverci (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think I have any personal issues with you, at least I can not recollect any. It is difficult not to see however that you are engaged in edit-warring and you consistently try to eliminate the users you disagree with rather than to discuss with them (yes, I know, consensus in these topic is not possible, but you all should attempt at some kind of agreement rather than an open edit-warring). I do not think this is what you have been unbanned for. I see however that this discussion has the potential of turning into one more Armenian-Azerbaijani battle so that nobody would read it, let alone of taking a reasonable decision based on it. Sometimes I think that all warriors from both sides must be just topic-banned en masse, but may be we are not yet ready for this decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I probably should apologize because I indeed do not know what is in your head and what your intentions really are. You should understand however that for an uninvolved user your actions look exactly like this, whatever you intended to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support.--Renat 23:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: A week ago Drmies blocked Solavirum and now you ask Drmies to participate in this discussion and say that you were only following the advice and "luck wasn't very good"? It is not suppose to be about testing someone's luck or getting rid of editors using the most convenient way. Also, Steverci, do you know who is "emailing administrators expressing the desire to negotiate blocks"?--Renat 02:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci: I agree with Ymblanter, opening up yet another case against this editor indicates a battleground mentality. You very recently brought a case against them here and they received a ban, further chasing things is simply tendentious WP:HOUNDING. I get it, you think their contributions are a net negative to the topic – you've expressed this view many times before – but the difficulty (and a requirement) of editing in a controversial area is learning to accept and work productively with editors who you fundamentally disagree with. I don't support a topic ban because I appreciate you've worked hard to contribute positively since your last one was lifted, but viewing things through the lens of righting great wrongs, or us vs. them, will lead to further problems (and boomerangs such as this). You don't need to continuously characterise other editors' contributions (sometimes inaccurately). Disruptive editors' contributions speak for themselves. Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Can I kindly ask what in the hell is going on here? To anyone unfamiliar, Steverci is referencing this case 1 that got Solavirum banned for only 2 weeks for violating a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles second time, enforced by El_C [2]. How does Steverci's complain of a relatively short ban for violating WP:BROADLY second time now, turn into a indefinite topic-ban for Steverci ? I'm sorry for my ignorance maybe I'm understanding something wrong, but how does Ymblanter just casually suggest to topic ban another user, when all they did was to complain (and if you look at the history of Solavirum's violations, rightfully so to an extent) about a short ban for a second broadly violation? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The confrontational behaviour in WP:AA2 has become normalised over the years (example here: Armenian editor reports Azerbaijani editor at a noticeboard, Azerbaijani editors arrive to defend the editor and Armenian editors queue up to condemn them, or vice versa), but that doesn't mean this type of behaviour is no longer tendentious and disruptive. Jr8825 • Talk 10:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, but that didn't answer my question. Steverci has valid grounds for his complaint, as even the admin Drmies, who enforced the block for 2nd broadly violation said that "many will consider that relatively mild" talking about the 2 weeks timeframe 1, 2. And as Steverci pointed out in that case, Solavirum went through the cycle of denying his violation of the topic ban 3, then when his blatant denial attempts get called out and even the admin agreed that he violated it (and got blocked for it), he finally "understood" everything on his talk page 4. It seems like Steverci's complaint of Solavirum's relatively short ban has reasonable grounds, but for some reason there is a lot of WP:OTHER here, and unfounded "boomerang" topic-ban proposal for Steverci for some reason. Instead of discussing why someone who violated the topic ban 2nd time now, and who clearly isn't here to build encyclopedia shouldn't be banned just for 2 weeks, some people here deflect everything that Steverci said, and an admin of all people proposes to topic-ban him instead? This vote was just uncalled for to say the least. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there is to be an indef t-ban imposed on Steverci, it has to be justified a whole lot better than anything we have seen presented here. Saying "per BOOMERANG" does not provide an adequate justification. This ANI thread itself is not vexatious even if it is perhaps ill-advised and premature. But that, by itself, doesn't justify anything more than a warning. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is too severe of a sanction at this point in time; this ANI thread appears to not have been filed in bad faith.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't TBAN people for diff-less complaints that include speculation about motives; apologizing for that unfounded speculation but leaving the proposal in place is ridiculous, as is the suggestion that we should just be topic banning people en masse. The proposer should be trouted. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, fine, I will not deal with Armenian-Azerbaijani mud throwing anymore. I do not have any personal interest in this conflict. I wanted to save time to the community, but if the community is not interested, I am sure they are going to find some other way of dealing with the situation. I have a lot of other things to do. I provided diffs btw, but people do not seem to be interested in paying any attention to what I have actually written.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The only diff you've linked to in this thread is by Drmies. A diff-less (and argument-less) tban proposal doesn't save the community time, it wastes it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is incorrect, I have also provided two diffs for edit-warring in Shusha.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  My apologies, you're correct, I missed the unsigned comment at the top with two diffs of reverts. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I confess I also missed them, but it doesn't change my underlying argument or Levivich's good point; two diffs don't demonstrate grounds for a TBAN, and if they did, then a similar proposal would have to be put in place for Grandmaster. I'm really bothered we are discussing this, anyway, in regard to an editor who opened up this discussion because an admin advised him to do so. Grandpallama (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Good. Now, if we look more closely at the edit history of Shusha, let us say last 100 edits - from February 2021 or so - it almost exclusively consists of edit-warring. The article has been protected at my request from 22 April to 2 May, after the expiration of protection the edit-warring resumed. Dozens of users participated in this edit-warring. And the only special thing about this article is that it happens to be on my watchlist (I do not remember why, probably because of move warring which was a commons place there over several years). And then may be "the suggestion that we should just be topic banning people en masse" is not such ridiculous? As admins who are dealing with continuous Serbian - Croatian mud throwing can attest, the scorched earth policy there made their life easier - and I do not think we have compromised on the quality of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Just because an editor went to a busy admin and asked "what can I do about this" and the admin pointed them to a specific forum, doesn't mean that admin has condoned their action or somehow vindicated it. I do see a problem with editors from this area spending more time chasing after bans for each other than actually edit(warring)ing on the articles themselves. It's a waste of experienced editors time at the noticeboards and in the bigger picture, a continuation of edit warring by other means. I said as much above, but a constant, unfailing us vs. them mindset is tendentious and quickly becomes disruptive, users should be reminded that it's unconstructive and unacceptable. I think Ymblanter's response is completely understandable given the fact that this is the (third?) time Steverci has dragged Solavirum here, and Solavirum hasn't actually edited since the last because they're still blocked. Plenty of Steverci's criticisms are on-point, but equally, some of them are aspersions and at least one is an inaccurate accusation (they did not ask me to make proxy edits). There's no new ammunition against Solavirum and it's largely a straight up repetition of the same complaints. I don't believe Steverci acted in bad faith; I also doubt Solavirum believed they were acting in bad faith when they repeatedly exercised the poor judgement, bias and POV-pushing that earned them their topic ban, they probably instead felt they were righting great wrongs. That's not at all exceptional in this topic area. Steverci's editing is not dissimilar as shown by their edit warring at Shusha and BLP violations at Thomas de Waal (this diff, restoring an obviously partisan attack on de Waal, was accompanied by the edit summary "reverting WP:JDLI from 2011"). I think a topic ban would be an overly harsh reaction at this time, but I personally support a warning for Steverci. I also don't think Ymblanter deserves flak for expressing their view here. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was involved with Solavirum's 2nd tban violation case, and I don't think anyone here says that the admin "condones or condemns" Steverci's decision. As you said, they were advised to come to this forum, and they did exactly that. What is strange however, and others editors seem to agree on this, is how their complain of a relative short tban violation block turn into a "boomerang indefinite tban proposal" for Steverci, with virtually no basis? That is a very heavy sanction to propose on someone, and I have to disagree with you. I do think that it was totally out of proportion, and that the criticism of Ymblanter's action here is due. It just can't be brushed off as "their views" in my opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ZaniGiovanni: To clarify, I was responding Grandpallama point about not being right to discuss an editor's actions "because an admin advised him" to come here. I agree that a tban is out of proportion, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree over whether there's "virtually no basis" for it. Jr8825 • Talk 21:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was responding Grandpallama point about not being right to discuss an editor's actions "because an admin advised him" to come here. That is categorically not what I said. I said we don't TBAN an editor in the absence of evidence, and that the opening of this discussion is being treated as a retaliatory action when it is, in fact, the result of seeking advice for where to discuss concerns. And admins absolutely merit criticism when they propose inappropriate solutions, speculate about editor motivations, and seek sanctions without evidence; we should all be disappointed at, as Levivich pointed out, unnecessary wastes of community time, particularly when they come from the admin corps. Unless there's a sudden avalanche of support votes, which is unlikely, that's exactly what this proposal will have been. Grandpallama (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Whereas the topic ban proposal does not seem to get consensus, it seems to be emerging consensus that Steverci's behavior, in this particular episode as well as in the topic area, has been substandard. I do not see how pointing out this fact has anything to do with WP:ADMINACCT. Beyond ADMINACCT, I am obviously not acting as admin here (and not in the topic area).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  And, yes, let me repeat for the third time in this thread that I am not seeking sanctions without evidence. I in fact provided evidence, though, indeed, people not familiar with the topic area apparently consider it insufficient. Fine, I already said I am going to ignore future AA threads.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  it seems to be emerging consensus that Steverci's behavior, in this particular episode as well as in the topic area, has been substandard I don't think that's particularly true, either. I count 13 editors having participated in the two parts of this discussion, and only four (including you) agreeing there are behavioral issues. And of those four, one still voted against a TBAN. I don't think that's a consensus, emerging or otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not an administrator, but this seems overly harsh. Topic-banning an editor, because you disagree with one of their proposals. I fail to see clear violations of policy here. Steverci seems to back up his/her point quite well. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence provided to support sanctions. User made the discussion following the advice of an admin. Nothing here that suggests the complaint is frivolous (distinct from not being actionable). ProcSock (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Somewhat Support. I think the people opposing have probably not realized that this is substantially same report that Steverci filed a few months ago here (though it seems there may have been stuff in between then and now). From my estimation, Steverci has filed five separate reports against this user this calendar year alone (1, 2, 3, 4, and this makes 5). That needs to stop.
  Though, this is more of a case to be made for a one-way IBAN than a TBAN, but that's just how it is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too harsh and I'm not seeing clear attempts at disruption that would necessitate it. On a related note, this "Boomerang" thing has been increasingly referenced over the years when people come here looking for some kind of relief and I'm increasingly skeptical when I see it. Far too often, it's just codified victim blaming. ♟♙ (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban and Support IBAN, at this point I'm receiving reports on me by this same user on a monthly basis. And most of the time, they are unneeded reports. This report alone is just a compilation of half-year old arguments presented towards me that a lot of people have talked about and concluded. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Vauxford again

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.

---

For the discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents § Vauxford_again.

I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over there. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN over here. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (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.

About vvikipedla.com

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.

---

What is it, is it some kind of phishing site or just a "relatively-safe" wikipedia "mirror"? I've noticed that the site is even referenced from the wikipedia itself, specifically [72] and [73], shouldn't the users making these edits be warned/banned? Sasha1024 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sasha1024: it is not a WMF property, registrar goes to: Name: DYNADOT, LLC IANA ID: 472 Here is what they say about the registration. We can put it on the spam blacklist I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are certainly not reliable sources, and I've removed them from the articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow up at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#vvikipedia.com. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

xaosflux, thanks. As for King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, shouldn't we revert to this version? (As it seems that the two previously existing references, as well as the sentence about Wiki Arabi 2, were valid. However, I know nothing about the topic, it's just an intuitive feeling.) Also, shouldn't the users (Witus2 and DiatovKianov) who have introduced these edits be penalized or at least warned? (It seems they made almost no other changes except introducing vvikipedla.com links.) Sasha1024 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sasha1024: they seem to be good faith attempts to add this ill-advised reference - not concerned about their one-time additions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note vvikipedia has been added to the global blacklist. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Uhh, this thread is about VVIKIPEDLA.COM (upper case to emphasize the difference). MER-C 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C: thanks for the note, the global SBL now contains:

\bvvikipedia\.com\b
\bvvikipedla\.com\b

— xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As really, neither of these should be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 26 May 2021 (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.

Citizens Bank PLC

Hello, there is a request to review this Article. Please review the Article impartially. Thanks Maruf Hossain (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you have the wrong venue. If you need an article reviewed, there are many places at Wikipedia that can be done. What in particular do you need checked out? Maybe if you can be more specific, we can direct you to the correct place. --Jayron32 11:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Maruf Hossain as they're newish, may have a hard time finding their way back without a notification. —valereee (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want your article "reviewed" the best route (additionally: best place to get advice from editors who are more experienced with reviewing articles from new editors) would have been WP:AFC. I don't understand the Bengali language, but there seems to be a few reports about this in newssources (the source in English does seem to, prima facie, fulfill SIGCOV, although I'm not sure whether this is just run-of-the-mill coverage for such an enterprise). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it might have to do with recent edits by User:Sohagm100? It looks like a newbie trying to help but making a lot of mistakes. I left them a welcome template and watched the page, not sure what else needs to be done without more info from Maruf. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

List of songs about Alabama

List of songs about Alabama Please remove the spam from the history of List of songs about Alabama, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tint Last (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tint Last: Done, but this is not the right place for such requests. Please see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Graham87 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Block dispute

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 permanently blocked by a user to edit the wikipedia page of Beyonce's awards (Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Beyonc%C3%A9) for edit warring, while the other party involved was not even though I am not the one who initiated the edit warring. The block has no expiry and its been a year since it was implemented. I am requesting for an unblock to edit the page so I can put all the valid awards and its sources on the page, many other users are constantly deleting awards that are proven as valid and added some fake. Beyhiveboys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 28 May 2021 (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.

Dispute

Bob Coronato Please settle this dispute on the history of Bob Coronato, thank you.04:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Tint Last (talk)

The article has been semi-protected by another administrator, and I removed the added material per WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Move needs checking

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 may have read it wrong and it's not a copy and paste move (and I'm not against what I think they're trying to achieve), but could someone please check the BBC moves at Special:Contributions/TattooedLeprechaun please. I'm worried about the edit history getting even more confused than it already is, seeing as the same channel is soon to be in it's third different incarnation. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cancel that. All explained. - X201 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to revert the article's name.

Hello admins, I don't know if my request is applicable in this section, but if this request is not meant to be posted here, please move it to another board in order to address the concern. I have an article named "He's Into Her (BGYO song)", I named this way because the song is a soundtrack of the series of the same name which is "He' Into Her". The article intended for the series is already in the main space that is why when I made the article for the song I added the phrase "BGYO song". Unfortunately, it has been deleted by Fastily before, maybe because of the name of it and then moved to draft space by CommanderWaterford. Then, lately, Souradip Mandal renamed the article of the song from "He's Into Her (BGYO song)" to "He' Into Her", in this case it will create conflict with the article intended for the series, I discussed my concerns to Souradip Mandal but as of now still no response. I tried to undone the edits but it has been protected and it says that only admins can revert the the concern. That is why I came here to asked assistance with this matter. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: I have moved it back to Draft:He's Into Her (BGYO song) for you. Souradip Mandal is a new editor who perhaps doesn’t yet understand that the bracketed phrase (BGYO song) is used to distinguish the page from the article He's Into Her (should the article about the song be moved into article space). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: thank you for the quick response. Much appreciated.Troy26Castillo (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: I am really sorry for moving your page hastily ii should have understood it before . I am really sorry :@Troy26Castillo: for the inconvenience caused i really feel now, that i was stupid .

Malcolmxl5 yes i didn't knew that thanks for informing.

Again i am really really sorry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souradip Mandal (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Souradip Mandal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible rev-deletion needed

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. [74] and [75] are copyvios and need rev-deletion. Thanks. versacespaceleave a message! 16:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they do not. The editor in question added a copyright-violating image (which has been deleted), but no problematic text. Number 57 17:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. versacespaceleave a message! 21:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Mohammadhoshyar Sending Unnecessary Warning Messages And Promotion on Wikipedia

Hi All,

I recently moved an article into the draft mode due to advertisement and suspected COI. But the creator of the article User:Mohammadhoshyar start sending warning messages on my talk page please check here. User:Mohammadhoshyar is repeatedly trying to publish promotional articles on Wikipedia while Spiderone and Deb have already warned him. GermanKity (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

GermanKity, I was about to contact you as I just noticed the rather threatening messages on your talk page. I'm fairly sure there is a COI because the photo on his user page looks suspiciously like the same person as the subject of the article he created. He definitely has no idea at all what he's doing or who he is talking to. One more creation of a similar article and he will get a block of a suitable length. Deb (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This user (talk) cannot interfere with other people's articles because they do not have a single article to publish. In general, it interferes with the work of Wikipedia writers by tagging various articles. I ask the Wikipedia administration to punish this user who plays the role of administrator. This user has not posted a single article. Thanks.mohammad (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mohammadhoshyar, that was a rather useless ad hominim. Please stop, and comment only on the merit of the edits. You have until now failed to respond to any of the messages that were left on your talkpage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a competence issue here that probably will not be resolved. Deb (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Any more of this and the block will have to be permanent. Deb (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Deb. GermanKity (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Swattik Kumar Mahata

I'm not sure what is going on with this editors edits, but they seem to be pushing a POV with the edits I have seen. I have not looked through every edit they have done, but the ones I have looked at seem to be subtly changing figure or removing info, sometimes replacing and sometimes not. Every edit summery seems to be the same "I have changed West Bengals modern economy" which in itself is weird. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a common trend of vandalism in India related topics for these kind of users to use misleading editng summaries (e.g. update, fix numbers) like that as a way to deliberately introduced unsourced or factual errors. The fact that the user is stating "I changed West Bengals modern economy" on List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index is just an excuse to add in false data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. 31 hours unsourced edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed

[76]Drill it (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Drill it, most of these seem fine, although the user should probably slow down with their mass editing. If you are concerned about a specific (list of) contributions, please provide specific diff links and explain which policy is being violated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please specify what policy i have violated by unlinking my former userpage and cleaning up unwanted mess (which usually no one cleans) after a article is deleted.Ratnahastin (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If I correctly understand the situation, Ratnahastin's action is influenced by privacy concerns. As Drill it has thanked me for my response, I guess they're fine with the current situation too. I'll remove this section if you don't mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Don't you think that Drill it should "slow down"? This is a user whose account was created yesterday and has already done 249 edits, consisting of counter-vandalism and reporting "issues" to various administrative noticeboards, including WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, and now here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this is a good occasion to ask Drill it whether https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drill_it&diff=1025798962&oldid=1025798924&diffmode=source was a "yes". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both Drill it and Ratnahastin are editing far too fast to be thinking properly about what they are doing. Both of you, please go for quality rather than quantity. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin help needed at SPI

Are you a bored administrator looking for a new area to pick up? Consider helping out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations! We have a pretty large volume of cases and could use additional help. As long as you are an administrator, you do not need any special permissions or clerkships to perform many of the functions of SPI. As an administrator, you can (among other things):

• Analyze the evidence presented in a case, commenting in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section of each case
• Block suspected sockpuppets if you are convinced by the evidence, adding sockpuppet tags like {{sockpuppet}} at your discretion
• Request CheckUser attention on cases by switching {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|curequest}} and leaving a comment explaining why
• Mark cases as closed by switching {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|close}}

A few tips to help you out:

• You can find instructions and useful scripts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions.
• The "easier" cases tend to be the more recently filed ones under the "Open" category. The SPI case table is organized chronologically within each status category.
• If you are not convinced by the evidence presented, you can state why then mark the case as closed without action. All cases that are marked as closed are sanity-checked by a clerk or checkuser before they are archived, so it is always a team effort.
• Usually every September, the Arbitration Committee issues a call for CU/OS applications. Consider applying for CheckUser access after gaining experience as an SPI administrator.

Thanks for listening to me. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IRC security, Oversight notice

As of today, Freenode WP:IRC is no longer considered secure. A hostile takeover of IRC was completed by Andrew Lee (entrepreneur), who is described by an ex-Freenode staffer as a "narcissistic Trumpian wannabe korean royalty bitcoins millionaire".[77] Freenode's staff has quit, they advise that the network should be considered under control of a hostile enemy. Although previous communications are probably secure, future communication should be made under the assumption that it is all being logged. The WMF is on the case and looking for a solution. At this time, the Oversight team asks that all oversight requests be made by email only. Whether passwords, IP addresses, and cloaks are secure is up in the air, if you are at all concerned I suggest you simply not use IRC until more concrete information comes out. Smooth sailing, AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 18:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. It is worth adding: if you have reused the password you use on Freenode on any other sites, you probably ought to change them because the security of Freenode passwords is unknown at this point. Generally speaking, it is best to avoid reusing passwords at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion: m:Wikimedia Forum#Freenode (IRC). Killiondude (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

From a complete IRC dummy: Is all IRC Freenode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Freenode is one of many IRC networks. Snoonet, Reddit's IRC network, is another major one; there are others. Former Freenode staff have already created a new network (Libera Chat) and I see there is discussion at m:Wikimedia Forum#Freenode (IRC) about possibly migrating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To give an analogy, if IRC is "ice cream", then Freenode is Ben & Jerry's, and there are other providers out there. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful the politically charged, divisive name-calling from the anonymous/un-named ex-freenode staffer is - or why it's quoted here, but there is a real possibility that we should at a minimum make sure to move away from passwords shared with freenode.

kline wrote a bit about deleting your account data here: https://www.kline.sh. I would recommend reading that post, along with the resignations linked there from other staff.

You can drop your account using /msg nickserv drop <account name> <password>

You can overwrite your password using: /msg nickserv set password <password>

You can overwrite your email using: /msg nickserv set email <email>

Keep in mind, you will need to verify your new email. SQL^{Query me!} 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: For those of us that aren't as technically-minded, what's the point in overwriting your email if you have to provide another one to replace it? Sdrqaz (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: For some, their email addresses are sensitive, personal data. My primary, personal email address that I use to communicate with my family, for instance, is very obviously my name. If I had linked that to my username on freenode ("SQL"), it would make doxxing much easier. For wiki-related stuff I use a generic sql at enwiki address at a free provider. SQL^{Query me!} 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: I see, thanks. I used my Wikipedia email for IRC registration so hadn't thought of that. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz and SQL: the email thing probably couldn't hurt although it may not help. Assuming that the new owners really cannot be trusted, they may never delete any backups of any data they have. (I assume they already had backups, perhaps including offline backups if it was a well run network. But in any case, they could have made a backup of all the data once they took over.) While you could try using privacy and similar laws to demand they do so especially in the EU, frankly if the owners really cannot be trusted they'll probably be somewhere where they will have low risk and may still ignore you. The password thing and other stuff I would be more cautious about. If you have to provide your password before making such changes then it could actually make things worse. It could be the currently all the owners have is a hash. Even for a very weak hash like MD5, if your current password (that you're trying to replace) is long enough (I'm thinking maybe 12 characters+, depending also on the nature of your password) it may still be almost impossible to guess what the real password is (i.e. bruteforce). But if those now behind Freenode really are dodgy, they could start to record plaintext passwords and keep them, and you've just provided them that very password you're trying to hide which they wouldn't otherwise know. Of course it's also possible they haven't done much yet, and doing it now will ensure even your hash is permanent gone but it won't be if you wait 6 months. If your password is short enough then frankly them having the hash is probably good enough, depending on the hash. Personally, I wouldn't actually trust IRC not to have recorded plain text passwords anyway, have the ex-staff said anything? Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't the WMF operate its own IRC server? Bandwidth and server cost are next to nothing, maintenance cost can't be that massive and you wouldn't have to worry about well, this shit that just happened. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I have the same question. They operate irc.wikimedia.org already but all it does is automated logging . I see no reason it can't be expanded to host real chat as well. Naleksuh (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz and Naleksuh: meta:Wikimedia Chat exists but nobody uses it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: See the post made by a WMF SRE at meta. Basically, they don't have the time, or expertise to run an IRC network, apparently. I'd counter with the fact that running a very very very small IRC network for ~250-500 or so persistent users should take a minimum investment in infrastructure, time, and expertise. See netsplit.de's top 100 for instance. There are networks with around 250 users running on as few as 2 servers. There are networks with just 1 server running over 500 users. Ircd-hybdid/ratbox are very simple to set up, as is Unreal. SQL^{Query me!} 11:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I had this typed out before you removed your reply - I hope you don't mind, and that this helps someone understand the entire situation.

I've actually run IRC networks before.

There is a lot more to it than this than just the technical side to be sure.

Devils advocate time.

There needs to be some consideration, and network design w/r/t DDoS. There are reasonably priced providers that can for the most part mitigate this without the need for the server operator to put forward any effort. They can run as little as $25/mo for a DDoS resistant server, but the better ones are closer to $100/mo each. I'd go for 2-4 geographically diverse servers for stability's sake. This also eliminates the argument that the network can't be used in a crisis outage because it's hosted on core WMF infra.

The bigger timesink is going to be user management. Fights over channel ownership. Fights over username ownership. Friends and betrayals. Interpersonal fights. Claims of harassment. Also, there's fights between users, channels, and groups of users. Also, users like to fight. And then there's the zombie / compromised botnets that come and go.

That being said, I think a few trusted / experienced volunteers could for sure help run a very very very small IRC network with minimal support from the foundation, and a good set of rules / guidelines. SQL^{Query me!} 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think setting up our own server is a good idea (for the reasons you mention and others, like the fact that less users will be on the network and we'll have less interactions with Freenode regulars that are only casual Wikipedians). But I'd say it's cheaper to run than you suggest. A Wikimedia IRC would have far less users than the entire Freenode network, so the resources consumed would also be less. You could run the network on a bunch of $5 VPS' from DigitalOcean. For DDoS protection, OVH and Hetzner are decent these days, plus there's Cloudflare Spectrum if one can negotiate. There's also a lot of smaller providers that provide cheaper tunnels. My point being that the costs for a stable network would be much less than $25-100/mo * 4. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia channels taken over

Today, Freenode has decided to forcefully take over several of our sensitive, and non-sensitive channels, such as #wikimedia-simple, #wikimedia-stewards, #wikimedia-operations, #wikipedia-en-revdel, and many, many others. They also posted this ^(archive) yesterday. Please exercise extreme caution before asking for help on freenode with anything sensitive. Make sure you know for certain whom you are talking to. SQL^{Query me!} 11:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To whom you are talking / who you are talking to . Now drop and give me 50 non-split infinitives! ——Serial 11:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we shut down the channels or flag them with +q (removing ability to talk) if we don't trust them? Or are you saying the Freenode's sysops have shut out our community operators on the Wikimedia channels? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what happened in #wikipedia-en-revdel, for example

[03:08:25] *** Parts: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) () [03:08:28] *** Joins: freenodecom (~com@freenode/staff) [03:08:28] *** OperServ sets mode: +o freenodecom [03:08:28] *** freenodecom sets mode: +o freenodecom [03:08:28] *** freenodecom changes topic to 'This channel has moved to ##wikipedia-en-revdel. The topic is in violation of freenode policy: https://freenode.net/policies' [03:08:28] <freenodecom> This channel has been reopened with respect to the communities and new users. The topic is in violation of freenode policy: https://freenode.net/policies <all ops are removed here, all bans are unset> [03:08:30] <freenodecom> The new channel is ##wikipedia-en-revdel [03:08:36] *** Parts: freenodecom (~com@freenode/staff) ()

@ProcrastinatingReader: I mean that they have shut us out of them. SQL^{Query me!} 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yikes. That is textbook how you destroy a FOSS community; what is he thinking lol. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it's an extremely bad look - and is likely to turn a lot of people against him very quickly. SQL^{Query me!} 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not just us. SQL^{Query me!} 11:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What he's thinking is that he can threaten other people into doing what he wants. Here's a run down on Ars Technica. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crikey, that's one of the reasons I stopped using IRC about ten years ago. And people thought WP:FRAMGATE was bad, imagine what it would have been like if the WMF banned anyone who voiced a contrary opinion! That's basically what's happened here. What would be the knock-on effects if all WP-related IRC activity was shut down forever? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  It would have been a better idea if no WP-related IRC activity had started in the first place. If you want security, then use a secure communication channel. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Editors who have got used to conflabbing in the under ducts would be forced to plan their campaigns on Wikipedia, in the traditional fashion? Oh no, I forgot—that's why we have Discord. ——Serial 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh - ok, against my better judgement (I did IRC 10+ years ago) I found discord.com, signed up, logged in, d/l .. now how do I find the wiki channels? — Ched (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's an invite link at WP:DISCORD. If you click the join button and it should open the server in Discord. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. If he wanted to reinforce that the choice to move to Libera Chat was a good one, he's succeeded. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Didn't the whole development team at Freenode quit over this? It'll improve this project though, all that furtive discussion behind the scenes. -Roxy . wooF 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. Any public communication that affects Wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, and if any private communication is needed it should be over properly secure channels. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've never used IRC. The big surprise for me is that Korea has a royal family—who knew? — Neonorange (Phil) 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a thought: aren't "wikipedia" and "wikimedia" trademarks? What if legal sent the freenode folks a cease-and-desist to make them stop using WMF trademarks for channel names? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Freenode cleanup

We have some 900 subject pages which may need cleanup. I am not certain every mainspace page needs cleaning, but as indicated there seem to be many raw links to freenode on some fairly prominent pages as well. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Much reduced list of some 370. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of the links to //webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help should probably be redirected to WP:IRC help disclaimer anyway. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion related to data access for deleted sandbox

Hi, Seeking more feedback on an issue i have been chatting with ToBeFree (talk · contribs) here at User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#Links about a user account

		The Purple Barnstar
		For having been blocked based on an incorrect suspicion of sockpuppetry, one of the hardest situations to request an unblock in, especially when the block is incorrect and one has to find arguments for their own innocence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

and User:Gimiv/sandboxsandbox page that ToBeFree and Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) blocked and then speedy deleted due to socking apparently.

1. To be clear I am not asking for a revert of the ban, and have no position if the original ban was correct or not, I am assuming it was through WP:AGF of ToBeFree's comments that it was due to socking.

2. I participated in editing the sandbox and pinged Gimiv's account from my talk page seeking permission for additional edits (thought I would engage a conversation first, seems out of line to do a lot of edits on a sanbox without edits. My approach was first to do one edit, engage discussion, and then do more later). Essentially WP:BRD, but I am talking about a sandbox. Put it simply i was being polite as I dont know the user. Note this ping would have been visible to administrators before the account was deleted and no admin reached out to me prior to deletion.

3. WP:BRV states "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies." I meet this test by me doing 1/2 of the edits on the sandbox and a very small percentage of the edits as measured in kb. ToBeFree who refuses to email me the data asserting that as a % of the content my contribution is insignificant and that my edits were actually 1/3 of the page (if the user counts the deletion notice). The user makes more assumptions about how i could have saved my work within the 15 hours between placing a notice on a talk page and proceeding to delete (with apparent WP:RGW urgency).

4. ToBeFree states "The remarks about the ""very well done, perfectly kosher" content that "couldn't remotely be considered a violation of policy", and later about licensing, make me afraid that if anyone sent you the page content, you'd afterwards practically overturn the deletion by re-creating the same page again." seeking to WP:CENSOR the content that clearly fails to violate any policy other than that it was partially complied by a socker. Essentially I am being accused of Thoughtcrime, taking the AGF issue to the absurd.

5. ToBeFree repeatedly fails AGF by stating that I am seeking to evade a ban which I deny, (see point #1).

Wikipedia has become a sad place where editors divide into political camps, try to do whatever is possible to enforce their beliefs (aka CENSOR), and refuse to help each other, even with something as simple as a list of sources.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I did place a template notice on the banned Gimiv (talk · contribs)'s talk page since this AN said I should do so. If I am prohibited from placing a notice on a banned user's talk page, please feel free to revert it off, or let me know and I will revert it off. I was unsure of the policy, so I thought better to follow the clear instruction here at AN and place the notice until I am instructed otherwise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear which policy you're saying has been violated. Obviously no admin is obliged to take any action, so neither you nor this venue could force Hut or ToBeFree to send you a copy of the page. You can ask any admin for a copy of the contents, possibly at WP:REFUND, but if nobody actions your request then I guess it's pocket veto'd. If you believe the page did not fall under the WP:G5 criteria then the place to dispute that is WP:DRV. If you disagree with the G5 CSD policy itself, try WT:CSD. Although I can't see the contents of the page (created by "Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus", an ArbCom-blocked user), I suspect they may be (in essence) similar to MfD on this issue, in which case the page would be eligible for G4 deletion regardless of who creates it. From what I recall about that user's editing, including wild source misrepresentation amongst other issues, I'd be more concerned why someone is seeking to promote the banned user's work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about it for a while, but I currently have nothing to add to what I wrote at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtbobwaysf&oldid=1025841191#Links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly what action is being requested here, but I have to take issue with the implication that my G5 deletion of User:Gimiv/sandbox was invalid. That page was created by Gimiv, an account which has since been blocked as a block evading sockpuppet or meatpuppet. It is true that Jtbobwaysf edited the page, but their contribution is clearly not significant. Gimiv added 70 MB to the page, Jtbobwaysf added 341 bytes, consisting of an external link to [78] with a label. The fact that this is one of the three edits in the history does not make it a significant contribution, what counts there is the content added by the edits, not raw edit counts. I would have been quite happy to give Jtbobwaysf the contents of their addition if asked, but they haven't contacted me at all prior to filing this thread. Hut 8.5 15:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5 ToBeFree did mention you here so I assumed you were aware of my earlier request on my talk page. It would be great if you could email me the content. Note we are having a discussion here about Bakkster Man's suggestion to have a sandbox list of sources so both sides can eval the positions. It seems a potential solution to the polarisation, especially given that Bakkster and I appear to be on different sides of the debate, at least as of now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Was it a substantial list of sources, and are they not available elsewhere? If admins were willing, it sounds like a list of merely the cited links to journal articles is all that's requested from the deleted page, which may be a more reasonable request that a major revert/undelete. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It was a very long list of sources and links in a table format. I am not requesting an undelete of the user's account. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I only offered to send the content Jtbobwaysf added, not the entire page. In fact Jtbobwaysf has already been provided with that content here, so if that's all that's needed then this thread is pointless. I'm not willing to send you the rest of the page. It's a list of news articles (not journal articles, or anything which would be a good source for medical information) compiled by a sockpuppet of someone who was banned for disruptive editing and promoting fringe theories on COVID-19 articles. The list itself seems to have been compiled with an agenda of promoting the fringe theory that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab. I don't see how restoring it can do any good to anyone. Hut 8.5 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• What makes this a sad place is when people encourage banned users. Gimiv (talk · contribs) made six edits: one to dump a list into their sandbox (now deleted), and others like this to canvass likely suspects in order to stir trouble. Anyone wanting juicy info on the lab-leak theory should consult Google, not Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Template talk edit request

May we please have an admin evaluate Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 and either accept it or reject it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda just got protected, and now Talk:Ayurveda is being flooded with edit requests by editors who did not follow the "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" instructions. That button is an Attractive Nuisance.[79] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Another edit request and another "Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y' format and provide a reliable source if appropriate" reply. What a shock. Who could have predicted that if you give unconfirmed users a button to push they will push the button no matter what instruction you put above it?

• Talk:Minecraft#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021: Involving abbreviation for "MC"

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Three more:

• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2021
• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Does anybody here think that the above examples need to clog up the edit request queue rather than being ordinary talk page comments handled in the normal way by the editors watching the page? (Taps microphone: Hello? Is this thing on?) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that, except on a very few pages, the disruption is usually temporally limited and is dealt with rather rapidly. On many talk pages, the request are not disruptive (just not policy compliant), and then there's the occasional, rare, good ones. I think what we need is a firmer (policy/guideline page) which would give scope and guidance for admins or template editors on when to override the default template edit-notice when the edit requests become spammy and disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Both the bad and the good would still appear on the talk pages if the button simply opened up a new section on the talk page. The only difference would be not annoying those who monitor the list of unanswered edit requests.

Before we can create a policy or guideline on when to do this someone with the ability to edit protected pages needs to respond to Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021. It has been a week, and nobody has responded, not even to say "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Although it would be a good thing on Talk:Project Veritas... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • And on Talk:Indian Medical Association:[80] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Palanivel Thiagarajan article recently encountered couple of vandalism. -BALA. R^Talk 04:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are the one deleting cited content and giving zero explanation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6396:f8aa:bc5d:243e:ee0d:6694 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't delete any cited content. The citation was deleted by somebody else. The changes that you made was irrelevant to this article.-BALA. R^Talk 07:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Vloskim Kramář, Removing maintenance template, doing promotion and edit warning

Hi All,

Please look into the User talk:Vloskim Kramář, he recently created a page Treedom, i tried to move it into the draft twice here and here, as i found advertisement and undisclosed paid. But User:Vloskim Kramář tried to remove maintenance tags and publish the article without resolving the issues. He also involved in edit warning but start sending 4th level warning on my talk page in 1st attempt. GermanKity (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Vloskim Kramář also removed all notices from his talk page. please check here. GermanKity (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• While I won't comment on the general situation here, I think there may well be some paid editing issues here. Similar articles have now appeared on five different projects, created by "new" editors, over the last 2 months. Risker (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please go through the talk page of GermanKity. Admin ReaderofthePack already asked them to be cautious about their own Conflict of Interest. GermanKity moves pages to draftspace indiscriminately and visibility they have troubles with every other editor here in Wikipedia. I doubt if they have sufficient knowledge about WP:GNG. They repeatedly created non-notable article even after deletion discussions. When I asked about the discrepancies in their communication, they decided not to answer and engaged in an edit war. Possibly they are paid editor and for that reason see every other editor as a paid editor. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As for my actions, apologies if I used wrong template message while using it for first time. Vloskim Kramář (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - As per WP:DRAFTIFY, when draftifying you need to inform the creator on their talk page. As the perceived problem was of advertising and COI, the the standard User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js message "needs more citations from reliable, independent sources" is inappropriate and unhelpful as it does not inform the creator of the specific problem with the article. Also per WP:DRAFTIFY, if the creator disagrees with the draftification they can move it back to mainspace. If this is the case, then it should not be re-draftified but sent to WP:AfD. Editors are entitled to remove warnings or whatever else from their talk page. --John B123 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Different IP sock per edit

Various socks of WP:INDEFfed User:Hoggardhigh have, for years, waged a campaign of largely pointless changes to articles. Though occasionally mildly positive, their edits largely needlessly alter perfectly well-expressed text to a fashion they prefer, often the forcing of one valid WP:MOS choice over another perfectly valid one. A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA, rarely, if ever, in a context where it is actively required for disambiguation or for internal consistency within an article. I know that @BilCat: and @Ahunt: have also been combatting the individual's campaign and may have a perspective, particularly in regard to edits on aircraft-related articles.

Hoggardhigh's tactics have evolved from a succession of user accounts, to the use of a particular IP for a period, to recently the use of a different IP address for almost every individual edit, sometimes mere minutes apart. The recent history of Kelly Murphy, The Amazing Rhythm Aces and Where Have All the Flowers Gone? (film) are illustrative. (Further examples can be found if my contributions are searched for the edit summary "WP:EVADE, User:Hoggardhigh".)

Watchlisting a vast list of articles with previous activity uncovers new edits but newly-targetted articles will be less easy to spot. Rangeblocking may be appropriate and the most effective tactic but a perspective on that is outwith my expertise and I know there may be collateral effects. Does anyone have a view on the best way to proceed? (Pinging @RoySmith:, @Callanecc: and @Sro23: as you discussed the issue in the last two SPIs here and here.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes this sockmaster is annoying, many of the edits are detrimental to the articles and almost all have to be reversed. Because this person constantly opens new accounts and also IP hops I am not sure what can be done other than revert on sight. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Those IPs are all on the same /64 range (2603:6081:7840:FA00::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which can generally be treated like a single IPv4 address. Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral. --Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Blocked for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! Ah, is there any way of checking for further edits made in this range prior to the block? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Would this be the range's full list of edits, per the "contribs" link noted in Blablubbs post above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker, it would indeed, though it looks like almost everything has since been reverted. For future reference: If the IPs you are looking at all start with the same first four groups (2603:6081:7840:FA00 in this case), then you can cut everything after that, append ::/64 and get the range (2603:6081:7840:FA00::/64) that way. It's generally a good idea to do this whenever you look at an IPv6 address since people tend to float around on /64s rather quickly. Some providers (especially in Asia) do not assign /64s, but it's common practice in large parts of the world. --Blablubbs|talk 09:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month? Would need longer then that, unless the individual behind the socks were somehow restrained from his/her computer, phone, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. This person has been carrying on a concerted sock campaign for years. A one month block will not have much dissuasive effect. I was also going to ask if this sort of block will just stop him IP editing or will it stop him creating new accounts? Because he is likely to just do that, based on past experience. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA Insisting on the Oxford comma is a blockable offense? Did an Oxford comma shoot your dog or something? --Calton | Talk 10:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid style choices should not be changed based on the user's personal preference alone, it's a waste of everyone's time; particularly not in part of a years-long campaign of abuse and evasion. The same applies to someone removing Oxford commas on the same basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are used wrongly by this person, too. It seems to be done more to create chaos than as any sort of style issue. It all means they have to be assessed, tracked and reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary of this second re-imposition of Hoggardhigh’s work has not grasped the points being made above. I will take it as a misunderstanding, though more hesitancy about making accusations would have been appreciated.

There has never been a suggestion that Oxford commas are prohibited. The point is that an absence of Oxford commas is not prohibited either, as Hoggardhigh is seeking to impose. They have mounted a sustained campaign for at least 4 years, a prominent part of which is to impose their preferred, valid style to the exclusion of another equally valid style. That is plainly disruptive. Again, the same would apply if their campaign was to conversely impose the removal of Oxford commas.

This is far from the only aspect of Hoggardhigh’s campaign but it is a highly characteristic one, highlighted to indicate the links between the multiple socks.

I'd like now to do what I intended to earlier; to check and address Hoggardhigh’s latest IP sock edits, without the concern of their will being re-imposed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker is right, the issue here is disruption, not Oxford commas. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is the issue. Question is, is it possible to ban the sock-master, indef. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairly sure the sock-master is already banned under WP:3X since I counted 5 confirmed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh/Archive. Frankly even if they weren't, there seems no point imposing a Cban. Realistically no one is going to unilaterally unblock a globally locked editor with a large SPI, and it doesn't seem to me the lack of a formal ban is making it more difficult for us to deal with the socks. Of cause dealing with the socks wastes a lot of time since as often happens, there's no simple way to stop block them before they edit without a lot of collateral so it's mostly revert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that. Per @Blablubbs: "Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral" and if a means can be implemented where the time spent countering this individual may be better spent, why would we not do so? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: My statement was poorly worded but you seem to be talking about something else. I wasn't trying to suggest we should refrain from blocking any particular IP or IP range. However this editor has been here since 2017. Either we've all be utter idiots and it has been trivial to block them but we never did. Or as with most sufficiently persistent socks, they have access to enough IP ranges that it is impossible to block them successfully long term. Especially when the use of accounts, and the cost of blocking editing from accounts from those IP ranges (i.e. non anon only) is considered. While blocking account creation will help with accounts, it can have a cost and more significantly, they just have to find some IP they can use for account creation. It could be some Wifi they come across while out and about, or something else. They can then disrupt Wikipedia from the leisure of their home until we detect and block it. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best, but it does mean we should be realistic and understand that as with many socks, we our best hope is unfortunately probably going to be that they give up whether because they get annoyed with our blocks or for other reasons, rather than believe that we will find a way to completely block them from editing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I skimmed through your opening statement and you mentioned how their tactics have evolved over the years, so I think we are in agreement that it's not realistic to expect we will ever be able to completely block them from editing before they edit. Again this doesn't preclude making some blocks which help, but they will still be back if they wanted to be. Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For further clarity, note my reply was intended as it was indented as a reply to GoodDay's comment. I found their comment difficult to parse. As I pointed out, the sockmaster concerned is already defacto banned. The sockmaster account is also globally locked and probably blocked. So there's no question "is it possible". It is, we've already done it long ago so it didn't make much sense to ask about it. It occurred to me that maybe what they were really trying to ask is whether there was any way we could completely to block the editor from ever editing. My suggestion is it was not possible. We can and should do what we can, but they will continually evade if they really want to. That is the unfortunate reality of open editing and persistent socks with sufficient resources and know how. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure I'm any clearer about your point. What is the "cost" you refer to, particularly when it has been stated that, in this case, there is none, meaningfully? Nobody is saying any measure is guaranteed to completely stop a sock but if we can reduce their options and make it onerous for them to continue, why wouldn't we? They would have fewer options to return and if they do, we can address that if it arises. Or are you advocating allowing them free rein? I think GoodDay's point is pretty plain and simple and clearly a longer term or indef block will be more of an impediment to the sock than a shorter one. Your attitude seems defeatist.

Incidentally, I notice the block has been extended to 6 months. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:0:0:0:0/64

Hello, i have a question for any users. Who is behind the IP 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:753B:1D8:415E:125C, which is ranged as 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:0:0:0:0/64? I believe this IPv6 is geolocated in Turlock, California but this IPv6 behaviour is more like autoconfirmed user in general, such as sending warning to another user, acting it as IP bot that tweaking a pages, etc. 36.77.80.201 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello 36.77. Basically, "who is behind an IP" is something to avoid per WP:OUTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for information. 36.77.138.36 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

More eyes

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_24#Template:Constlk

In the spirit of 3PO, and "there's always another admin", I'd like to please request more eyes on this situation. Thank you very much. - jc37 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to delete an edit in Waterdown, Ontario

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 - my apologies if this should be submitted to another discussion, but I can't figure out which one. I am asking that this edit be deleted, as it is slanderous against the community of Waterdown, Ontario. Thanks for considering........PKT(alk) 14:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) @PKT: Hi, per WP:REVDELREQUEST you ideally should be using either the email function or ask in the dedicated irc channel for these requests, instead of posting them here where they might attract large amounts of attention. I have asked a admin on irc, and the revision has been revdelled. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Asartea, as well as the pointer. Cheers...PKT(alk) 16:50, 31 May 2021 (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.

Gaggan (restaurant)

Any clue why this is suddenly attracting large numbers of brand new editors? It's been coming up on my watch very regularly for the past couple weeks, and it doesn't seem like edit-warring or vandalism. Just...suddenly a ton of interest from new editors. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It has {{copy edit}} at the top, so it's probably coming up on suggested edits or something like that. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm fairly certain that that's the best explanation. A few months ago I tagged New River Railroad as needing copyediting; over the course of the next three months it had a bunch of random vandalism, copyvios, and mysterious nonconstructive edits. After the tag's removal, it's only had a single edit in the following four months. In that case, I can rule out some external explanation because I added the tag. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: User:Vahurzpu and User:Sdrqaz are right I'm sure. If you check out Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Find articles that need copyediting mentions that the Wikipedia:GettingStarted process suggests copyediting articles. I think I remember people complaining about this so guess I did know about it once, but completely forgot it was a thing until now. You can try the process yourself via [81]. I never actually got that article to show up before running out of suggested articles but possibly the system only chooses a random subset of articles or something. There use to be a tag "gettingstarted edit" for these edits but for whatever reason it seems to have disappeared possibly back in 2014. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

While most of it were simple good or not so good copyedits and changes, some do appear to be vandalism [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. Someone also needs to find a source for when the owner moved to Bangkok (I had a quick look but didn't see anything) [88] [89]. As to what's going on here, maybe some sort of off-site campaign? I was thinking someone trying to develop socks, but while I could imagine someone getting many of them to edit the same article, I can't imagine them doing the vandalism and it seems unlikely a random vandal came across an article someone else chose to use to develop their socks. Edit: Campaign may not be the best word. I don't mean it's necessarily malicious. It could be e.g. some introduction to editing course that suggested that article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks, all. Huh. How unfortunate. That makes me think twice about that particular tag. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

To add a new article

Dear Sir, I tried to add a new article 'എം ഫൈസൽ' and opened the draft page. But I found a message stating my name in Malayalam resembles the names blacklisted. Please look into the matter. Hope you can create a page for me. Expecting your support M Faizal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalakhil (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amalakhil: it's very unlikely you should be creating a page with a Malayalam title on the English Wikipedia, other than a user's talk page or your own user page. Very very very rarely there may be a case for a redirect, but you mentioned a draft page. If you want to create a page written in Malayalam, try the Malayalam Wikipedia ml:പ്രധാന താൾ. If that's where you're trying to create the page and getting an error, you will need to ask for help there as we have no control over what goes on there. Perhaps try asking at ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:കാര്യനിർവാഹകർക്കുള്ള നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡ് as I think that may be their administrator's noticeboard. Although it may this is a basic question and it would be better to start off somewhere simpler instead but I don't know where as ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സഹായമേശ their help desk seems to be dead. As you can understand Malayalam I assume, you should be able to work out better where to ask for help on the Malayalam than me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Malayalam script is blacklisted in titles but only in some namespaces, including Draft. It looks like they created the page at the Malayalam Wikipedia after this, but it was deleted (probably for lack of notability). Peter James (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to modify one-way interaction 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.

---

As per this discussion, I was recently given a one-way interaction ban against User:FDW777. I have raised this with User:Daniel, who informed me of the decision, and there was a discussion at his talk page here. User:Valereee has suggested that I ask for a modification so that the one-way ban becomes a two-way ban. This was affirmed at my own talk page here: "Ask for the i-ban t be made 2-way so that the two of you can just go about your separate ways, since neither of you wants to continue to engage."

I certainly don't want to continue to engage with FDW777, but since the one-way interaction ban, it feels like FDW777 is continuing to take advantage of this one-way ban against me. Following the one-way ban, FDW777 has raised an AE request about my ediitng which has resulted in me being topic banned from all BLP articles. Now they are replying to a discussion I have started at the George Lansbury Talk page here. There may actually be a good point being made within this droll comment (rather than pointing out the error, they say that John Smith would be turning in his grave - it occurs to me that Smith's leadership requires a clarification to this fact). Am I still allowed to comment in this discussion without replying directly to FDW777? I would assume so, but I cannot be sure. In any case, as FDW777 has previously claimed to have little interest in the vast majority of UK politics, it seems coincidental that they are now commenting at a discussion about a UK Labour leader from the 1930s. It also feels like they are following me around by commenting on a discussion I have started (therefore replying to me). It also feels like WP:HARASSMENT: in the space of a month, FDW777 has started two AE discussions about me and an ANI. Prior to this, I had no such cases made against me by other editors. I have raised my concerns about this editor before, but the ANI was swiftly closed. To resolve this issue, I would like to request that it be made a two-way ban. The original proposal made by FDW777 was simply to disengage from the conflict, which I would gladly do. An administrator also proposed a two-way ban, which FDW777 agreed to, before retracting this statement. The one-way ban was proposed by another editor. I think the discussion was heavily biased in favour of FDW777. User:Floquenbeam was also about to enact the two-way IB before FDW777 retracted their agreement.

The clarification about John Smith is useful, but not the sarcastic tone in which FDW777 has added the comment; it seems unnecessary, and doesn't state the problem in a helpful manner.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• There is no sarcastic tone. I noticed a discussion in which several experienced editors had failed to notice the rather significant flaw in the proposal. I didn't mock the proposal, or comment saying I wasn't in favour of it. Rather than allow more time of editors to be wasted debating an inherently flawed proposal, I simply pointed out the flaw and left. FDW777 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since I keep getting pinged by TT on this in multiple locations, let me clarify one more time: I was about to enact a 2-way iban only because both editors agreed to it, and I saw no point in them further snarking at each other on ANI if they were both ok with a mutual iban. When FDW777 changed his mind, I didn't enact the iban. I never reviewed FDW777's editing to see if a sanction on them was appropriate, and my being willing to anact a 2-way ban should not be interpreted as me thinking they were equally at fault. Discussion continued, and consensus at that discussion was a 1-way iban was appropriate; Daniel interpreted consensus correctly. I don't have time to review behavior since then, but I strongly encourage those who do look into this to either change it to 2-way, if FDW777 is taking unfair advantage, or inform TrottieTrue that they are about to get indef blocked if they don't drop the stick, if FDW777 is not taking unfair advantage. This kind of festering dispute is one of the reasons I think 1-way bans are often suboptimal; they should often either be two-way, or it should be solved with a block instead of an iban if the misbehavior is all on one side. Not getting pinged about this anymore would make me happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm wrong to say that FDW777's comment is "sarcastic": however, I suggested a potentially unique fact about George Lansbury be added to his article lead (which another editor supports), and the reply from FDW777 was "John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave." There are more constructive ways to point out my error, like simply stating that John Smith was another Labour leader who did not contest a general election. The comment made is quite oblique. I note that above, FDW777 is referring to my discussion as an "inherently flawed proposal". It wasn't really a comment that "pointed out the flaw" - certainly not directly.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since you were fond of quoting Jimbo Wales before, how about this footnote from the verifiability policy that contains a quote from him, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information. Had nobody replied I would probably not have said anything, in the hope someone else spotted the problem. But since several experienced editors had failed to spot the problem I thought I'd try and help. I could have said absolutely nothing. I could have let the debate carry on and on, and only after much time was wasted point out the problem. But I did neither of those. I tried to be helpful. I think I was. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since I am dealing with two separate issues in my post, I'll clarify. The problem I refer to is not the lack of references, but that the "fact" being discussed (that George Lansbury was supposedly the only Labour Party leader not to content a general election) was not true. Had I dashed to ANI starting a thread titled "TrottieTrue adding unreferenced content again" I could possibly understand some backlash, but I didn't do that. I didn't raise the WP:V issue at all, only pointed out that John Smith hadn't contested an election either. Or at least I did for anyone capable of reading between the lines, since otherwise my posting of John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave would have made no sense at all. FDW777 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Following the one-way ban, FDW777 has raised an AE request about my editing which has resulted in me being topic banned from all BLP articles: So what you're actually saying is, had the IBAN been mutual, you would have avoided getting topic banned for BLP violations? Or you could have carried on making BLP violations? *facepalm*
  This literally is making you all the more, not less, blockable. (Note that they were told in the t-ban discussion to both drop the stick and that there were concerns with their understanding of BLPs: both chickens would seem to have come home to roost.) ——Serial 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"So what you're actually saying is, had the IBAN been mutual, you would have avoided getting topic banned for BLP violations? Or you could have carried on making BLP violations?" No, I'm not saying that at all, although User:Valereee has questioned the need for FDW777 to monitor me. The better solution to any BLP violations would surely be to educate me on why they are violations, and help me improve. The topic ban came about as a result of an error on my part; as User:Andrew Gray noted at that discussion, it isn't as clear cut as was suggested.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Whenever somebody points out to TrottieTrue that they are violating policies or guidelines, they respond with indignation and accusations of harassment instead of calmly taking on board the criticism. In the Lansbury/Smith matter, they wanted to add unreferenced content to the lead that was not discussed in the body of the article, contrary to the Manual of Style, arguing " A fact can be self-evident without a citation." Wrong on the MoS, wrong on Verifiabilty, and wrong on the factual assertion about Lansbury. Actually, I think that it is good and necessary for an editor with strong knowledge about British and Irish politics, like FDW777 for example, to monitor TrottieTrue's edits in this topic area, because triple errors of this magnitude are not good at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - This editor has turned into an incredible time sink, and the next step considered should not be lifting or altering their IBan, it should be a CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I'm not going to look up what the various one-letter prefixes mean, because it is pretty obvious that TrottieTrue is incapable of editing properly. This means an unqualified ban is in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• TT, what I was saying was that FDW had indicated they didn't want to feel they needed to continue to monitor, and that if they didn't, they shouldn't feel they needed to; that someone else would pick up the slack. I've told you that I do believe your understanding of sourcing needs to be improved. Your feeling that this is some sort of game that is stacked against you is completely incorrect. Many editors are completely willing to help other editors learn to edit. What they aren't willing to do is try to convince them they need help. Right now many of us are feeling like you aren't willing to recognize you need help. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting I-ban as so far it literally only had positives to show for it (and, frankly, asking for such a thorough consensus as the previous discussion resulted in to be overturned in less than a month indicates a slightly tenuous grasp on community feeling.) Would probably support a c-ban per BMK, Phil Bridger and those who are soon to post, per timesink. ——Serial 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Okay, it's clear I can't get a fair trial here, and I don't need this anymore. I formally withdraw my request, and would be grateful if an administrator could close this discussion please. User:Valereee felt I had good grounds for it, otherwise I may not have bothered (see previous links). The atmosphere here is highly unpleasant - another pile-on against one editor (me), in which many of the same editors and administrators are appearing to uphold the previous decision, and amplifying everything I may have done wrong. Anything positive I've done is overlooked.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Almaty - images in signatures

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.

---

• Almaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On 31 May 2021 I noticed that Almaty was using an image in their signature (example), which is forbidden by WP:SIGIMAGE. Consequently, in accordance with that policy and also WP:SIGCLEAN I posted a note on their talk page, and then proceeded to remove all such instances of the image, preserving everything else.

The following day (1 June) my note was removed without a reply. I restored it, with a further question; and there followed a series of such edits one of which claimed There is a a whole page tutorial showing how to put your flag in a signature.. Penultimately, after my last post to that page it looked like this. Almaty then proceeded to blank the page again, and five minutes later posted on my own talk page. After further posts there, I left this note, giving notice as follows: if I see you make any post where your signature contains any image whatsoever, and which is timed later than 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (the time that I saved this post), I shall open a thread about you at WP:AN - despite that, their very next post four minutes later included an image in the signature, which was clearly against my request, so here I am.

What I am asking is (i) regarding the claim "There is a a whole page tutorial showing how to put your flag in a signature", does anybody know of this tutorial? (ii) Are my actions correct? (iii) Per the editnotice (the part about "If your post is about a ... user ... you should post it at ... (ANI) instead."), should I have filed this at ANI? (iv) What, if anything, should be done next? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any such tutorial and nothing was immediately obvious when I searched archives on Wikipedia but it does appear they've since removed the images after opening a rather silly RFC on WT:SIG. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the signature, I'm not super good at wikilawyering and I genuinely thought you were allowed to use the flag on your signature because i saw pages or tutes about it, i cant exactly remember. I opened a RfC because I thought i was right. I withdrew the RfC when i realised i was wrong. Nothing to see here. Also Bradv an arbitrator thanked me for the comment when i said i'm changing the signature, took me a few edits to remmeber how to do it, and I removed the images myself. Literally nothing to see here --Almaty (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Do NOT remove other peoples posts except as permitted by WP:TPO. You're at AN now: don't make it worse for yourself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also there was a signpost article about it in 2019, two years ago, I dont think that it was such a silly RfC. God knows why people get so angry about such things. Anyone "flying" an image (not emoji) flag is violating Wikipedia:Signatures#Images. We shouldn't create a fancy gallery for these. Furthermore, I dislike the idea of adding fancy colors and HTML tags to a signature. If someone has something important to say, the arguments should stand out, not the signature. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaty (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop taking the mick. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Literally an accident. I don't care anymore, an incredibly vacuous argument about signatures. Like all incredibly vacous things here. this is a waste of everyone's time, easier if I just leave again. Sorry for not understanding all of your policies and trying to contribute, as always. --Almaty (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Judging by this post, Almaty is referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Gallery, where ToBeFree's post of 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC) may be found. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the ping. My opinion can be found at WP:SIGRANT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thanked you for providing a resolution to what I thought was a rather silly argument. No, images are not allowed in signatures, and surely that isn't the hill you want to die on (if you'll pardon the expression). I see people are trying to make this thread about other stuff, but I don't think that's necessary. Thank you for changing your signature. – bradv🍁 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks bradv. You see how on just on this page 🍁 and 🌊 are used in signatures - they appear to be images "of any kind" as per the policy, I recommend changing it to say all images apart from emoji, at least. Or explicity disallow flags because I'm quite sure there is a tute about it. it doesn't take much assumption to know that for someone who virtually always uses visual edits where possible to not know that it was a good faith mistake (and good faith RfC question that I withdrew . --Almaty (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

These are not images, these are text characters. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the confusion may stem from the fact that an emoji is literally just another character - just like any special character such as % or non-latin characters. It does not increase server load or anything that's listed as a reason for disallowing images, because the display of the character is handled by the user's computer, not the Wikimedia software. Easy solution - change Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons to: Using the [[Image:]] or [[File:]] markup in signatures is not allowed for the following reasons. Just to make it clear to all who read it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

<gallery>loophole.png</gallery> – but yeah, I think that would be a pretty uncontroversial, helpful change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, it could just say "image files" instead of "images" - the issue is with image files, and adding that word should make it clear. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's even better. I'd implement the change now, but it's yours to add. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Images do not notably increase server load. The extra bandwidth used in serving an image asset is negligible, and the impact on server resources even more so, especially compared to the amount of assets served by WMF servers. And performance is the sysadmins' problem anyway, not the community's. The only actually valid reason for not allowing images in signatures is to due to the increased page load time for users, particularly in areas with poorer internet connections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(i) I've never heard of it but maybe, we have a lot of tutorials on how to shove beans up your nose (ii) I didn't read through all the posts, but bringing it up with the user is an important step that often gets overlooked. Bringing it to admin attention when disruption persists is appropriate. (iii) I don't have a rigid distinction between AN or ANI; either board will get the necessary attention (iv) If Almaty has changed the signature, I'm not sure anything else needs to be done. It might be worth taking the mythical tutorial to WP:MFD, and maybe a serving of trout, but it seems the main concern is resolved. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I for one find it hard to assume that they didn't attempt to do this for disruptive reasons. The image in question was the WHO flag - and Almaty has long disrupted COVID-19 topic area subjects with bludgeoning, refusal to drop the stick, and other disruptive behaviors. It is quite... coincidental that they attempted to place a flag of probably the best known organization related to health/medicine into their signature - which I can see no other reason than to attempt to give their comments an "air of authority". Their excuse of "its just I found a pretty signature tutorial that had flags on it" doesn't seem likely to me. The disruptive behavior was then continued in their posts at their attempted RfC that was linked to by the user themselves - they were explained why they were wrong, yet they claimed that it needed to explicitly say "images of any type including flags". They do this in the COVID-19 area too - yet another attempt to game the system by saying that if a policy doesn't explicitly say exactly the situation that they're in, it doesn't apply to them. This user was previously warned of the general sanctions under COVID-19, and a topic ban at one point which was removed. They later promptly retired (and vanished as well) to avoid what would've likely ended up being a swift replacement of the sanctions. I'll note that they've continued bludgeoning discussions on COVID-19 after their unvanishing, and since they've "retired" before, I recommend this not be closed without seriously considering at a minimum a COVID-19 topic ban, but perhaps even an indefinite block as their behavior has been continually disruptive after many warnings/chances. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the proper link to the topic ban's removal - it boiled down to a WP:ROPE removal as they seemed to understand how to avoid it in the future. Their behavior since removal leads me to believe that the only way to prevent future disruption to the project is to not allow them to edit the space at all. Though they said it was due to them feeling "unwell", and as one administrator noted they clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment, it's clear that the methods are not being utilized to stop editing before disrupting things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong in the COVID-19 space for a year, and I'm a subject matter expert, so sorry if it came across as bludgeoning. I've contributed as much as I can be bothered, because I don't care to keep having to explain myself and read obscure policies. I made a mistake about a signature and thought I was right, and then I realised I was wrong. If past incidents are repetitively brought up, I leave, that's my pattern. Goodbye for at least another year (how odd, just over exactly a year). --Almaty (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I believe that User:Berchanhimez is trawling through my history and requesting a topic ban because I disagreed with them on a RFC. --Almaty (talk)

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

Request To Dissolve The Restriction for Creating BookMyShow Title Page on Wikipedia

Hello Team,

I want to create a company page for my client - "BookMyShow". Apparently it has been said that creating draft/mainspace page for this title has been restricted on local or global blacklist. I noticed the page was restricted 5 years ago by some other authority, due to not following guidelines, however, I would like to give a fresh start now. Request you to remove the restriction for creating page as the content created is providing company information seems to be accurate and helpful for everyone. Please help me through this. Shruti12111998 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've already pulled this off the local blacklist per my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

PMC Thanks a lot for the assistance Shruti12111998 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

reopen discussion

Closed with an understanding to try to avoid each other, given the one-way structure of the interaction ban. –xeno^talk 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I'd like to reopen the discussion about the one-way interaction ban for TrottieTrue. Lost in the above discussion, probably because TT doesn't do well listening to advice, is the fact that FDW777 did in fact enter a discussion TT had started on a talk page and make a sarcastic remark aimed directly at TT. This is at best inadvisable and at worst, baiting. I really do think a 2-way is needed here. —valereee (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Or, in reality, I stopped a pointless discussion wasting the valuable time of several editors, since it was based solely on the unreferenced, and incorrect, assumption that George Lansbury was the only Labour leader not to contest a general election. Since there had been several replies and nobody had pointed out that rather important fact, I tried to help. If anything, further sanctions against TT are merited for making the edits in the first place since they still seem to think WP:V doesn't apply to their edits. This was a textbook example of "I heard somewhere" that turned out to be completely false. FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, the fact you were right is not really germane to this discussion. TT has an interaction ban against you. That means they can't even answer your snarky remark at that discussion -- a discussion they started -- and probably can't safely even continue in the discussion. They may not even be able to continue editing at that article safely, as now they have to make sure every edit they do there is not an inadvertent undoing of a previous edit of yours. Why were you even at that article? I don't see that you've edited it before. This is why one-ways are such a bad idea. —valereee (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So you'd have preferred it if I said nothing and more time was wasted and, potentially, false information was added to an article (false information that had already been added here)? Also my remark was not snarky, I was trying to avoid being terse. FDW777 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, if someone has a one-way interaction ban with you, your best bet is to behave as if it's a two-way. You absolutely should not be following them around, even if you are just trying to help minimize damage. You have done what you can by calling their work to the attention of others. I guarantee you there are multiple people who have that editor on their radar now. Believe me, I do understand how frustrating this kind of thing is. Clearly you're out of patience. But if you aren't going to be able to help yourself, we need to make this a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The current drama is, yet again, not of my creation. I could have created a thread here or at ANI about this deliberate attempt to flout policy, but decided on a brief talk page message ignoring the wider policy issue and just pointing out the error. Rather than accept my brief intervention as a good faith attempt to point out a rather significant mistake, TT chose to escalate the issue here. They could have just thought "oops, I got that wrong" and moved on, but they chose not to. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, you're missing the entire point here: you kicked TT out of that discussion, and possibly out of that article, by following them there and making your comment. This person isn't allowed to interact with you. They can't even ask you to explain what you meant when you rather cryptically posted "John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave" as your complete comment that was supposed to explain to them and everyone else there what TT had gotten wrong. Not being able to access the source TT was citing, I can't even check to try to figure out what you're getting at. You need to stop following that editor around and let someone else try to see if something can be done. —valereee (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what a one-way iban is. You might want to propose somewhere that such bans no longer be imposed and/or that all such existing bans be converted to two-way. However, a one-way iban means that FDW777 is entitled to comment providing they don't breach other norms. I haven't looked at the particular issue raised, but FDW777 seems to be saying that they intervened to prevent an article from displaying false information. That would normally result in thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, yes, I get that. And normally when we make a 1-way, we expect the other editor to not bait the editor who is i-banned from interacting with them. FDW followed TT into the talk of an article FDW had never edited and replied to TT in a discussion TT had started.

Believe me, I understand that FDW is a better contributor and TT has competence issues. I get it. But FDW should not be baiting TT, and if they can't stop, the i-ban needs to be 2-way. That's what 2-way i-bans are for. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So what's a one-way iban? You seem to be saying it's a two-way iban with a different name. Or are you saying that FDW's comment was an attack of some kind and the iban should be converted to two-way? The discussion at Talk:George Lansbury#New fact in lead section proposal looks reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, we give a 1-way because one person is acting badly toward another completely blameless person. When that completely blameless person starts following around the person with the 1-way, inserting themselves into discussions started by the person with the 1-way, and replying to that person, they cease to be completely blameless. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you know how much regard I have for you, and I usually agree with your judgment, but I can't really see that comment as baiting. It might seem cryptic to an American, but anyone who follows British politics (and it's probably fair to assume that people editing that talk page would fall into that category) knows who John Smith was, and knows that he died without leading Labour into an election. I can't explain how FDW ended up at that discussion, and in general terms I'd agree that they shouldn't be following TT around to articles, but I can't see the comment itself as problematic. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, did you miss the part where FDW followed TT into the talk of an article FDW had never edited and replied to TT in a discussion TT had started? That is baiting all by itself, no matter what the comment was. TT can't reply, and probably can't even continue in the discussion, and possibly can't feel safe editing that article. —valereee (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe I kicked them out of the discussion. They replied taking my correction into account. Did I run to a noticeboard complaining of a violation of the IBAN? No, as I believe it would be absurd to comment in that discussion pointing out a mistake then file a report if the mistake is acknowledged. I believe my post was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Had nobody replied by that point I'd probably have said nothing, hoping one of the regular editors of the page would have said something. But since several had replied without spotting the problem, I thought someone had better say something. I've no interest in inserting myself into TT's disputes, but I'm not going to sit back and say nothing while they advocate false information is added to an article. FDW777 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, you'd never edited that article. How did you even end up at that discussion? —valereee (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. As for your possibly can't feel safe editing that article claim, they've edited the article four times since my talk page post. How am I possibly making them feel unsafe? FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, yes, generally it's fine to check the contributions of an editor whose contributions seem problematic. And to be clear, I think TT's contributions need checking by someone. But not someone they can't interact with. And the whole reason they came in here originally and posted their wall of text was because they wanted to ask if they were okay to still edit there. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, I didn't miss that part - I said I can't explain it, and I'd be interested to hear their explanation. I agree that FDW needs to take on board that they shouldn't follow TT around, check on their contribs, or anything like that. In your re-opening this thread, you said that it was 'at best inadvisable and at worst, baiting' - I agree with you that it's generally inadvisable, and I hope that FDW takes heed of that. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see making a critical intervention to prevent false information being added at a single article to be a problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, FDW has just said "I'm not going to sit back and say nothing while they advocate false information is added to an article". This editor seems to think that if they don't keep an eye on TT, no one will. Which, having been in a similar situation which took FOREVER to finally get enough other editors' attention, I totally get. But TT is now on plenty of people's radar screens, people they can actually interact with and possibly learn from, though I'm not optimistic. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And now they've doubled down: they don't see what they've done as a problem, even after two people have said it is. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Three experienced editors had replied at Talk:George Lansbury#New fact in lead section proposal without noticing the problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Make that tripled down. FDW, the point is that you followed an editor who is forbidden from interacting with you into the talk of an article you'd never edited and replied to them in a discussion they started. That is not fair to that editor, and the fact you still think it's an okay thing to do is why I think we need to make this i-ban 2-way. Honestly wouldn't it be a relief to not have to patrol TT's edits? —valereee (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, I was helping. Helping both the encyclopedia, as well as TT and other editors. If I'd said nothing, they might have spent minutes/hours/days/etc arguing about whether the article should say George Lansbury was the only Labour leader never to contest a general election. My intervention prevented any further time being wasted debating the addition of something that wasn't even true to start with. I will not apologise for that. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's try this then: FDW777 you are correct, reviewing an editor's contributions history to check for problems is not, generally speaking, improper. You are also correct, in my view, that you didn't scare them away from that talk page, or that article, since they continued editing unabated after your comment. However, valereee is also correct that it is widely seen as bad form to put yourself in the position of being the one to check up on an editor who is i-banned from interacting with you. Please bear that in mind, and don't go checking up on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

GS, TT came in here originally, in the wall of text two discussions above, to ask if they could still edit at that page now that FDW had come in. And honestly, if it were me in their shoes, I wouldn't. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you and I have both experienced situations where users whose editing is problematic start believing that they are being victimised by people who repeatedly (but correctly) draw attention to the problems with their edits. From my reading of the thread two sections above, TT's complain about FDW boils down to the fact that FDW made an AE complaint, which was upheld, and commented in the Lansbury discussion to correctly draw attention to a factual error. If the AE report had been unfounded, or the comment about Lansbury had been erroneous or disrespectful, I could see myself agreeing with you here, but they weren't; at the moment, while I can empathise with TT, I don't think that sanctions against FDW are needed. I do think that they should step back from checking on TT's contribs though, and leave that to someone else. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will happily step back, but I do not accept I did anything wrong in pointing out the problem that others had missed at George Lansbury. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, thank you. If you'll voluntarily stop patrolling their edits, we can close this. —valereee (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks from me too FDW777, I agree that this can be closed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, oh, believe me, I have the greatest sympathy for FDW. They've been fighting the good fight. —valereee (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

RuPaul’s Drag Race (British series 2)

Has anyone looked at this properly? This is the only one in hundreds of Drag Race articles that has had its progress chart removed. I came to look for this season and it was goneShontal Smith (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you mean RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). This is a content issue and should be worked out on the article talk page though I see there has been a discussion, an RFC, on this matter already. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections on this and all related pages were removed as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. As can be seen here[90] these charts have ended up at ANI again and again. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that this is being handled on an "article by article" basis, whereas instead this should be a project wide formatting issue. Lots of people end up using the "Every other article does the wrong thing, why can't this article do the wrong thing too!" argument the OP is trying to use repeatedly to argue against the changes made to this one article; it's a common and understandable (if spurious and invalid) argument. I would recommend (if anyone who regularly edits in that area is watching) that a broad-based, project wide RFC be held to establish standards for format, sectioning, layout, and whatnot for those articles, so that if they really do need to be stripped of the cruft that Guy Macon notes above, there is a firm footing to stand on. Taking on a single article in a set of largely identical articles and changing the formatting of that one only is likely to raise questions about why it hasn't been done for the others, and really there should be some consistency here. Other Wikiprojects, like for example WP:USRD or WP:UKGEO, have well established format and organization standards for groups of similar articles, and while there is often much variance in practice, once you've established a good article template that has broad consensus, you at least have a place to point where you can say "this is how we should do things". This kind of one at a time scattershot method of cleaning up all of these articles isn't helpful. Other than that rather ranty bit of advice for anyone who might want to implement a good plan for fixing the problem (do it or don't, I don't really care) this is NOT an admin issue, as noted above. There is nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a real series of Ru Paul's Drag Race? Oh. How boring. Imaginary series of Ru Paul's Drag Race in sandboxes are a recurrent topic at MFD, and are deleted. A real one is so boring, and can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin issue or not (probably not) I'm not sure an RfC would resolve the problem as ime most of the disruption is newbies who don't even know about RfCs let alone care about the outcome. I first heard of this through RfPP where pages were experiencing disruption from newbies changing colors or changing placements. I tried to come up with an obfuscation solution using {{Drag Race contestant table}} and Module:Ru Paul's Drag Race tables hoping that it would (1) standardize design and (2) make the code obscure enough that newbies couldn't effectively mess with it, but that effort stalled out because of my limited knowledge of Lua. there might be some content disputes among more experienced editors on the finer details of data presentation, but I think normal editing has generally handled that alright. See, for example, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC: Proposed progress table for all RPDR shows which I used to inform the template and module design. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: That seems to be what is being asked for here, although of course that doesn't do away with the existing RfC. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That might solve the problem of those tables being vandalism/disruption magnets (although I doubt it) but it would do nothing about them being unencyclopedic. Play-by-play details don't belong in an encyclopedia. We don't have tables in our world series articles detailing every pitch and whether the batter hit it. We don't have tables in our NASCAR detailing every time someone took or lost the lead. We generally only document the results of contests, not who was ahead partway through. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't really accurate comparisons; this isn't a NASCAR race or baseball at-bat. Our articles on television series routinely give a synopsis of the episodes within that series (e.g., the featured article Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)). As a competition reality television show, each episode features an individual, discrete challenge that participants are judged on and which they may win or lose. Besides the loser being eliminated, the results of these challenges have no direct outcome on the final placement, unlike NASCAR lead changes or baseball at-bats. Even if they did, comparing a reality television show to a sporting event doesn't make sense. Tables like this are part of how we cover competition reality television shows, for example, choosing random seasons of competition reality shows I can name off the top of my head: Big Brother (British series 8)#Nominations table, Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains#Voting history, The Biggest Loser (season 7) (pretty much the entire thing is week-by-week stats tables), The Amazing Race 11#Results (where we do list every lead change), A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila#Contestants, The Bachelor (American season 25)#Call-out order, Opposite Worlds#Game history, The Great British Bake Off (series 6)#Results summary, and Skin Wars all have tables showing episode by episode placement of contestants just like Ru Paul's Drag Race articles. There's a strong consensus among those who know and edit this content that these tables are encyclopedic considering nearly every similar article has one, and for good reason: the outcome of each episode is important, encyclopedic information about that television series which is easily and helpfully presented in tabular format. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mea culpa for starting all this mess. In short, I noticed an edit request (patrolling CAT:ESP [or was it CAT:EEP, I don't even remember]) to update the table there because of some poor argument that it was inaccurate back in March, seeing instead that what needed to be done was just removing the whole table (reasons for succinctly summarised by Guy above), of course facing some opposition and disruption, then ending up with an RfC on that page (instead of a more central page). Anyway, if there are some objecting that this hasn't been consistently applied to other pages, the simple solution is either A) fix it helpful primer or B) start yet another RfC (at some place like WP:VP or the like) about this particular issue. Of course I'm all for A, since I don't think there's a reason why any of the other series are different, but again it's all my fault for noticing that something could be improved... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Community review of the closure of the RfC at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)#Ground rules

On behalf of an IP editor who has asked for it, I'm making a formal request for review of the closure of the above mentioned RfC. Thanks for your input on the matter, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• (Disclaimer: I'm involved.) This appears to be an example of a closer taking an RFC that was leaning one way, closing it in the other direction, and justifying it with MOS:ACCESS. I mean, I guess that's justifyable from a WikiLawyer perspective... ignore all the IP votes that didn't cite a concrete policy in favor of some votes that mentioned MOS:ACCESS. Doesn't mean that this close is going to be popular or good for the encyclopedia though. We now have a full protected article that is missing its contestant progress chart, in contravention of the WP:SILENT consensus of several hundred other articles that include contestant progress charts (Survivor, Big Brother, the rest of the RuPaul's Drag Race articles, etc.), and a bunch of upset IP and newer editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• After further thought, and Spa-Frank's argument below, I think this RFC should have been no consensus, and should be returned to the status quo ante. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion between involved participants

(Disclaimer, if it wasn't obvious, that I am also involved) Silent consensus is only a very weak consensus, and cannot be taken to apply when it is objected to (unless the implication is that the existing RfC should have been shut down and re-opened as a more centralised discussion which can apply to more than just this article). Note that many (although not all) of the "!votes" for option A were new, single topic accounts (some of them have even been blocked as sockpuppets, I'll have to go through the RfC to confirm), and that their justification was sometimes as weak as the obvious appeal to tradition, i.e. "this is how it's always been done", without either justifying why that is so or why the new concerns raised would not be valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not convinced. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Of course. Not surprising. I obviously disagree with the above biased summary. For one thing, WP:SILENT does not and cannot ever override explicit consensus. To stand on SILENT in this case is highly misplaced because the very circumstances that led to the RfC are fulsome documentation that there was not a consensus to make the progress tables standard. Even if there is a silent consensus on a group of articles a talk page discussion at one of them overrules for that particular article. This is settled procedure. Also, closers are explicitly instructed to consider not merely quantity of arguments but their quality so there is no case of a "RfC leaning one way" except on the most superficial headcount grounds. I didn't count the votes wrong because those statements aren't votes and I didn't count, which is also settled procedure. Further, the arguments for inclusion were almost entire WP:ILIKEIT while the exclusion arguments were at least policy based. That this results in a lot of poor arguments being dismissed is not merely sanctioned, but actually instructed. It is not a bug of the close but a feature. That the poor argumenters are upset is no surprise but that dismay does not mean the close was inadequate in summarizing the discussion. There has yet to be a policy-based reason given to suggest that the close was inadequate, just a lot of statements that it was wrong or miscounted or somehow oppressive to a minority. This has all been explained, starting with the closing statement that many of the upset parties have not apparently read. It has also been re-explained many times since. I stand by the closing statement because the only cognizable reason for the objections (including yours) has been: "This makes that one article inconsistent". Consistency is not a reason to overlook the concerns of either well-documented disruption or disabled access. If consistency is desired so strongly, and obvious and simple solution presents itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @Eggishorn: I don't think anyone is suggesting that issues were not present: the consensus was not to remove the table outright. As I noted in the RFC, simply nuking the table would not solve this issue, and it seems I have been proven right. I am not making an argument to say what the consensus was, merely that, very clearly, no consensus existed to remove the table, or indeed to change it at all before all this blew up. The RFC should have been closed as status quo ante for that reason. No consensus for a future direction of the table emerged. Editors arguing for a table different to those in other articles were misunderstanding the colour guidelines. Information should not be solely portrayed by colour, not that colour should not be used at all. I did propose a compromise (although I admit a mock-up may be helpful): SAFE1 and SAFE2 to note when a contestant received feedback from the judges; Change "ELIM" from black to white, on its red background; Add footnotes for different types of elimination. No policy reasons became apparent for rejecting this proposal, merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:FANCRUFT was repeatedly, and incorrectly, cited, as justification for squashing high, low, safe w/ critiques, safe w/o critiques, into one. FANCRUFT is an essay and arguments citing it should carry no weight for that reason, but they have unduly been given weight. In short, I believe the closure should be no consensus, and (a separate debate) returned to status quo ante. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: something like this mock-up in my sandbox, for instance. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) You are correct that no policy reasons were given for rejecting this proposal. In point of fact, however, there was almost no support for it, either. That there was no consensus for that sub-proposal does not mean the there was no consensus for the discussion as a whole. At least, not as WP:CONSENSUS is defined by policy: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The concerns that the upset parties expressed were explicitly taken into account, read the closing statement. (I seem to keep saying that.) The concerns that the table was non-compliant with disabled access concerns was addressed by the proposal you made but that did not sway more than a tiny minority of discussion participants. The concerns that disruption attends the table mattered more to the discussion participants, and this is backed up by policies and guidelines. Dissent with a consensus does not mean that no consensus exists. It just means that the issue is contentious. That was amply demonstrated before the RfC and there is nothing surprising in its continuation afterwards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) The mock-up still violates WP:NOR (FANCRUFT, material of relevance only to passionate fans of the subject, is often OR based on primary sources, and this was no exception). This is not the place to relitigate the RfC, in any case. This is for review of the closure. People can read the RfC and come to their own conclusions. Let's stop arguing and leave uninvolved editors a say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After 60 hours with no input beyond involved participants, it seems clear that no administrator has yet felt it is necessary to comment here. Could somebody kindly close this and allow everyone to get back to doing something productive? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ReputationBoss

There's an interesting email in my email spam box. It's from ReputationBoss and they say:

ReputationBoss builds Wikipedia pages for global corporations and select individuals at a reasonable cost. We are the top firm in the industry because our Wiki Experts have on average over 7+ years' experience, have made over 8,491 Wikipedia edits and have created over 155 pages each. We know how to get a Wikipedia page approved and looking its best.

On Wikipedia, I've been an admin for a while. IRL, I run a planning and engineering consultancy. Both the company and I may just just get over the GNG hurdle. I wonder whether there's a way of engaging with them so that we can get to their editors. If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to part with some dosh so that they can get editing, with anything resulting from it getting deleted again under undeclared paid editing rules, that would be fine by me. The risk is that the media has written about me being a Wikipedia admin and it shouldn't be that hard to figure out which user name that refers to. So if they are any good that should not be too hard to figure out for them. Then again, they may not be that good... Either way, it would probably be best to commission a page for the company. Suggestions welcome. Schwede66 21:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My slightly cynical view of their promotional nonsense is that it's exactly that: nonsense. They might have one editor with seven years on Wikipedia, or a total of 155 pages (and don't even get me started on how 8k edits over 7 years is absolutely trivial). Basically, they're throwing around impressive-sounding numbers that don't actually mean anything in an attempt to scam you into paying them good money. Oh, and they all work in Sarasota????

That being said, a few of us have tried a handful of times in the past with various Wiki-insert-the-smart-sounding-second-syllable companies to get the inside scoop and potentially roll up one of their editors, but we've never managed to get anywhere. If you think you can get farther with an actual company that might actually be article-worthy, go for it, but I highly doubt the WMF will pay the money for the honeytrap. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You might check out scam baiting websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone decides to try some sort of "Hi! I am a experienced Wikipedia editor who needs a little extra cash" scambaiting, be sure to email three or four administrators in advance and tell them the details of your plan. You wouldn't want somebody on Wikipedia figuring it out and nobody believing that you weren't actually selling out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Benedifan

This user, Benedifan, shows its uncivility by making personal attacks on users, including Rdp060707 myself and Beyond My Ken. Please take a look on its contributions. I'll give an one evidence of uncivility/personal attack here: this diff at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Karolina Protsenko.----Rdp060707|talk 12:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased Disinformation and Libel on webpage of Liz Wheeler, as well as Censorship of further neutral corrections to her 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.

---

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages. In particular, this is in regards to the Wikipedia page on Liz Wheeler, which I have notices contains disinformation spread about Wheeler in regards to Anthony Fauci. I have since edited and corrected that by trying to share accurate information which lends credence to the evidence against Fauci. My efforts to do so have been continually blocked by the following Wikipedia users LizardJr8 and Zingarese, who falsely committed libel against me, accusing me wrongfully of vandalism when trying to correct their biased disinformation. I would appreciate immediate assistance in resolving this matter in an ethical, civil and accurate way. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:4501:750:2194:A479:74CF:476D (talk • contribs)

For my part, I was unable to determine why you were deleting content in your 7 reverts without an edit summary. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Signed for user, who appears to have been blocked. They do appear to have been blanking sourced content because they disagreed with it. I couldn't locate where they'd attempted to actually add information. Per DOLTy I did have a look at the interaction and couldn't see anything that could reasonably be construed as libel. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

While reviewing their unblock request I found a legal threat. I have extended the block accordingly, it is not indef only because it may be a shared IP. As always I welcome review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:11, 4 June 2021 (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.

Mihail Lavrov and open proxies

Mihail Lavrov, and administrator and formerly an arbitrator on the Russian Wikipedia, has been there CU checked on a suspicion on being a sock of another administrator and former arbitrator. The check found that all their edits were made using open proxies, and their account there has been indefinitely blocked by a crat [91]. We should probably blocking them here as well (the contribution is insignificant and old though), but I am going to wait for comments. I have not notified them of the thread, since I am not sure this is the best way forward in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

From what I can understand, the block is mainly for using open proxies, and there seems to be some discussion about whether that's an appropriate rule on that wiki. There also seems to be talk of them being meatpuppets. Ymblanter, since you talk the talk, what evidence is there of actual sockpuppetry? I'm not currently persuaded a block on this wiki would be appropriate. As you suggest, it's not really going to do much anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m doubtful about blocking them on en.wiki, given they do not appear to have done anything wrong here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. No, there is no open evidence of sockpuppetry as far as I can see (there will be an ArbCom case coming, and they might decide smth, but this is a different story), only the statement that they exclusively use open proxies. Let us drop the case then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking someone for merely using proxies has a bunch of issues. First, in Wikipedia:No Open Proxies, it states "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.". Essentially, with zero evidence of socking, and the rule on proxies itself not supporting punishments for merely using them, I suggest no action is taken until further evidence says otherwise. I recommend this be closed. aeschylus (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I went to make a change to meta.wiki this morning and was briefly stymied because I typically use a VPN, and the IP I was assigned was blocked there as an open proxy. (As an admin I have IPBE here on en.wiki so it's only ever an issue for my fairly infrequent edits to other projects). If a person is socking, that's a different matter, but there are many quite legitimate reasons to use open proxies. It's surprising if ru.wiki considers the use of open proxies itself to be a blockworthy offense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Disruption" at ANI and a bad block

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.

---

When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block. So the below report is colored by the "Ivanvector is wrong, wrong, wrong" thoughts that fill one's brain when disputing a block. There is still the open question of whether moving others' comments is acceptable, so I feel this report can usefully seek community consensus from the editors at AN/ANI as to whether I'm doing something wrong or right, if you want to focus on that aspect. I also think it's important for the community to review poor behavior from admins when warning/blocking, to discuss and learn from it, because it is exactly what drives productive editors away. Facing up to an imperious admin, an incomprehensible block notice and the inevitable declined unblock request; it's easy to just give up and find a new hobby with less stress, and the possibility of admin misconduct never sees the light of day.

I ask the community to review the warning/block behavior of Ivanvector, and the edits of mine to AN/ANI that he apparently considers gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies (from WP:Disruptive editing). My edits are mostly adding {{Unsigned}} to unsigned comments, moving comments that were inserted inside another user's comment (none of that could possibly be controversial), and some rearrangement of comments when they are incorrectly placed above other user's comments, the core of the dispute. Help:Talk pages#Indentation (linked from WP:TPG) or WP:INDENT are good summaries of Wikipedia threading, if you want to reacquaint yourself.

Here are the five edits I can remember that brought dispute:

• April 19: [92] (Beyond My Ken incorrectly added a reply above another person, I fixed it and they reverted; discussion is visible in this diff at their talk page. I tried to carefully explain why Beyond My Ken was wrong, but they told me to go away.)
• April 30: [93] (This was a train-wreck of a thread. I sorted it out, and a detailed explanation is in the discussion with Bodney, who seems satisfied with my explanation and admits their own error.)
• May 30: [94] (Very simple unsigned comment; explained at my talk page, not sure if LindsayH has anything more to say.)
• May 31: [95] (Very simple: Lugnuts replies above everyone else, I fix it, Ivanvector reverts; Ivanvector shows up at my talk page)
• June 2: [96] (Another reply above prior replies; I'm only guessing this is what pushed Ivanvector over the edge)

Nowhere in any of these disputes did I ever revert anyone. When Beyond My Ken and Ivanvector reverted, I always let it be. One can easily trawl my contributions to see the dozens and dozens of edits to AN/ANI that were never contested. I count about 115 edits fixing things at AN/ANI since April 15. See my talk page for the discussion with Ivanvector, the block, and the unblock request with 331dot.

Those are the facts. Here's my argument: Do we let users add their !vote at RFA to the top of the support or oppose list, so that everyone else is sure to read it? Do we let users add new sections at the top of the page? No. It is a fundamental concept that editor's statements are of equal importance and put in the order that they are made. The discussions we have on Wikipedia every day work by the same rules. Proper threading should not be a controversial concept. My edits are well-based on consensus-developed guidelines and standards. I'm not just willy-nilly editing or moving stuff around, like a common vandal or troll. In all of the disputes above, my edits were correct. Now, Ivanvector and 331dot say that instead of moving comments I should go to the user and ask them to move the comment to the proper place. If you ask me, that's not going to get anything fixed. Wikipedia markup, frankly, absolutely sucks to hold conversations in, and I don't blame anybody for their errors in complicated threads, and I don't want to harass people to clean up minor messes. We have WP:SOFIXIT, and I can obviously competently fix it. Is it a waste of time? Maybe. (I do skip all closed discussions and some layout train-wrecks that are way past saving.) Is it disruption? I don't think so, but that is the question I put to you.

So, Ivanvector's warning on my talk page. It links to no policies, guidelines, or consensus opposing my edits. It's just pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you could call it Ivanvector's personal advice at best. I'm always open to reasonable discussion, and I lay out my argument, but the only response I get is Ivanvector shoving his shiny admin badge in my face with a warning that he will block. What is a man to do? Bow to the personal demands of an angry admin? No, I treat Ivanvector's statement for what it is: nothing but his opinion. I continue my helpful edits at ANI, and hope Ivanvector will do the right thing: Come back with a better warning or seek community consensus that my edits are disruptive before blocking.

Now, the block. Ostensibly for WP:Disruptive editing. Has Ivanvector read that guideline? "Gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies"? "Not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree"? Does that describe my edits? Has anyone read WP:Blocking policy lately? WP:BEFOREBLOCK? Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Ivanvector has completely failed to explain how my edits fit the Disruptive editing guideline in his warning or block. I believe that (1) the block was a bad block for these procedural reasons, and (2) I don't believe the community as a whole will find my edits disruptive (obviously or otherwise), in which case Ivanvector has gravely over-stepped his authority as an admin by treating a productive user like a common vandal, where the disruption is so obvious that he doesn't need to deign to explain it to me.

I welcome the community's input. Sending out notices to the users I mentioned now. Modulus12 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I apologized and the block has been removed so I'm not sure what the goal is here. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The blocking admin has also apologized for the short block from one page only. I think to be frank this is being made a bigger deal than it is. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The core of the dispute is indeed the moving of other users' comments from where they were placed, specifically on WP:ANI, a page which is already a drama magnet. In a discussion with Lugnuts some days ago in which they were aggravated that I did not block an unrelated editor (details aren't important but you can view the thread if you want) I posted a comment which Lugnuts elected to respond to directly below, despite there already being subsequent comments. I can't say for certain but assume that this is either the result of an edit conflict (Lugnuts' reply was a long-ish reply to my own long comment), or intended to call attention to the fact that it was a direct reply to my comment, but either way Lugnuts indented their comment at a different level from the subsequent comments, so there was no cause for anyone to be confused. I later replied directly below that, above the subsequent comments which were clearly not related to Lugnuts' reply. Some time afterwards, Modulus12 moved both our comments, in a way which made it appear as though both of us were replying to A.A Prinon, rather than replying as both of us had originally intended. This, in my opinion, changed the meaning of my comment, in violation of WP:TPO. To be honest I didn't much care, it was very minor and a simple revert restored the discussion to the participants' intended state. I noticed that this wasn't the only comment that Modulus12 had moved around the same time, so I went to their talk page to leave a {{uw-tpv1}} notice. However, Modulus12 is not a new user, and I saw the discussion there between them and Bodney also about refactoring talk page comments, so I then elected to leave a stronger, non-templated warning to desist from editing other users' comments, again specifically at WP:ANI. I was not aware of the prior incident with Beyond My Ken until just now.

A few days later I saw LindsayH's complaint about the same behaviour, and this is where my own poor judgement admittedly comes into play. I saw that comment and viewed Modulus12's contribs, and saw that they were again tinkering with comments at ANI. Judging that three complaints (my own included) in short order regarding actions that others viewed as disruptive established a pattern of disruptive behaviour, I part-blocked Modulus12 from ANI for one week. They appealed and were declined by 331dot, reasonably as they did not acknowledge the reason for the block. However, on reviewing this today I see that Modulus12's subsequent edits to ANI were simple indent adjustments and signing unsigned comments, and the complaint from LindsayH was regarding an edit which predated my warning, and so recognized that my block was an egregious error. Thus I unblocked and apologized. However, I reiterated that they should not move other users' comments to where they think they belong. Modulus12 disagrees, and now we're here.

(after ec) As for why we're here, I welcome a review of my actions regarding the talk page guidelines. Modulus12 evidently continues to believe that moving users' comments from where they were intended to be placed, with neither discussion nor notification, is permissible under the talk page guidelines. I believe this is forbidden, also per the talk page guidelines. Obviously one of us is not correct, and both of us would benefit from knowing which it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You also need to take into account that the placing of comments in the wrong place moves everyone else's comments from where they were intended to be placed. We can't have a free-for-all where the last mover gets to put comments where they want. You should never have warned this editor, and you certainly shouldn't have blocked, and should not do either in similar circumstances in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So I think what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact that I'm replying directly to your comment and not Modulus12's nor ProcrastinatingReader's, the guideline stipulates that my comment be indented one level more than yours, and also at the bottom of the thread? And had I instead replied directly beneath, it would have changed the meaning of comments that were written afterwards? Or have I not understood? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC) not sure if there is a POINT being made, but I've re-threaded this properly. It was initially below PR's 22:39 comment. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's a point being made, it's that I'm trying to understand the argument. You've moved my reply to Phil Bridger now below a comment made by Modulus12, which I did not intend to reply to. Why? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll re-thread again, though I would note that both are second-level indents and thus I didn't notice there were two replies to pick between. Obviously that's the point being made (i.e. it's not always obvious who one is replying to) but putting another reply under an unrelated one certainly doesn't help. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Take another look. [97] A.A Prinon's comment and Lugnuts's comment are at the same indent level after my edit. They are clearly both replies to you, not a Lugnut reply to A.A Prinon, just as A.A Prinon is not replying to Levivich, and Levivich is not replying to ProcrastinatingReader. They are all replying to you. The edit was flawless. Modulus12 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The fixes seem to be what participants should've done in the first place. However, talk pages are a lost cause, and doing 'too much' (like altering indent levels and moving things around too much) tends to cause more controversy than thanks. IMO it's one of those things where there's no issue but I personally wouldn't do it to that degree (although arguably good clerking should be more appreciated, and more frequently done to make conversations more accessible). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me try this another way, at the bottom, without indent. @Primefac: I made a comment which I described as a reply to Phil Bridger's comment at 22:00, at the bottom and indented according to what seemed to be the instructions being given, although it did seem to defy logic to do so. In nearly 12 years editing Wikipedia I have never, not once, made an intentionally disruptive edit for the sole purpose of making a point; I am genuinely confused here. Phil Bridger made a comment in reply to mine, directly below mine, indented one level more than mine. Modulus12 also made a comment in reply to my same comment, below Phil Bridger's in chronological order, indented at the same level as Phil Bridger's and one more level than mine. This indicates that both were replying, separately, to my comment; Modulus12 was not continuing the sub-discussion created by Phil Bridger's reply, but replying separately to me, not to Phil, and not to both of us. Do I understand up to that point? Now subsequently, I want to continue the sub-discussion with Phil Bridger, to discuss the points made there. You're saying that I am to insert that reply to Phil Bridger below the separate comment made my Modulus12? And that if I instead reply directly to Phil directly below his comment and indented one more level, that that is somehow disruptive? I find this all highly illogical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm probably as confused as you are. I completely agree you should have replied to Phil immediately below his post, not below Modulus12's, and I'm genuinely not sure why that's such an issue. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It goes like this:

---

I like pie. XXXX (time 0)

Pie is great, it's the best dessert there is! AAAA (time +2) < 2nd response to XXXX's first comment, but not addressed to the tangent about pie

You're right, it's the bee's knees. XXXX (time +5) < response to AAAA's comment

Me too, but cake is better. YYYY (time +1) < 1st response to XXXX's initial comment

My favorite is Angel's Food cake. ZZZZ (time +2) < response to YYYY's comment

Devils Food is better! BBBB (time +4) < response to ZZZZ's comment

My favorite is Bundt cake. CCCC (time +5) < another response to ZZZZ's comment

OMG! Pie is incredible!! DDDD (time +6) < 3rd response to XXXX's initial comment

etc.

---

That's pretty much the explanation I gave to Modulus, who said it made no sense. It makes sense to me, and it's the way things have been in the 15+ years I've been editing here. So despite Modulus' comment above, I did not "incorrectly added a reply above another person", I put my reply exactly and precisely where I wanted to, and M took it upon themselves to move it, incorrectly. I reverted it back, they complained, I was in no mood for trivialities and told them to go away. Now here they are, with the same attitude, complaining about a block or warning or whatever that's been undone and apologized for.

Then why the hell is this thread here at all? Why, if "When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block" did M feel compelled to file the report?

Recommend a trout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict with close) I have a chicken carcass to strip and then I'm calling it a night, so just a final thought: if an editor makes a comment here, and nobody is confused about what they were intending to reply to, then I posit that it's significantly more confusing to move it than to just let it be. Three editors besides myself thought this was the case, and Wikipedia works on consensus, not arbitrary adherence to written rules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You know what’s disruptive? These rushes to close a discussion in a purple box as quickly as possible, as if every single section is a request for help that ends as soon as it’s “resolved”. This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. Maybe, Risker, we can wait a day or two to decide whether anyone’s interested in discussing anything, instead of you super-voting your desire to make stuff go away? But that’s just my opinion; if stifling discussion on the admin misconduct allegations and the request for consensus on my actions (because literally anything “can be discussed elsewhere” in the byzantine Wikipedia discussion maze) is how we all act here, then OK. I don’t know what that means as to me doing what I want; I guess I can continue, and a small fraction of clueless people will revert me, and we’ll all end up back here anyway. As to the experienced editors above struggling to understand the very same help pages we link brand-new users to, I really don’t know what to say. Modulus12 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:RFP

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

---

I noticed that there's at least 40 unanswered requests. I think that counts as a backlog. An advance thank you to any admin that helps out there. Clovermoss (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done 32, and now have a headache. Will leave to others to finish off. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Was it that bad? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User Yozdek problematic editing

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

Persistent addition of inappropriate See-also-entries after a large number of warnings and explanations. Last one was [98], made 3 days after I undid ([99]) the previous attempt ([100]), and after final warning on user talk [101]. Most other edits are also inapropriate, and were just now undone by user Anita5192. Assuming good faith, there seems to be a CIR problem here. User seems to have no idea what they are doing wrong. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I examined several of this user's edits. They do not appear to be deliberate vandalism but are indiscriminate additions and changes of wording which are not helpful. Most of this user's contributions have been reverted and the user has been warned multiple times, yet persists. I agree that this is a WP:CIR issue.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their today's edits, I think that user Yozdek understood now how to proceed. I just thanked them for this edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

2601:601:1300:b130:d118:85b2:6169:11fd

We're editing removed redirects and vandalism.

@Earl Andrew @Jpgordon :: Block Admin

We too many time removed redirects 10 or more. Sun and Moon | Ping it! 03:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked 2601:601:1300:b130:d118:85b2:6169:11fd (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 3 days. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting sanity check on block I did

Hello. I just deleted what looks like an attack page and indef blocked the user. I would like a review of these actions. The user in question has few edits but has been here for over 4 years.

While the attack page was not in line with BLP and far from neutral, it appears to be supported some sources. It does seem and event of some notability and it may be possible that an article could be based on the news coverage if it is made carefully in line with neutrality and BLP requirements. I am not familiar enough with Indian sources to judge their reliability.

I am not 100% sure an indef block is required.

The page is Kanarjit Kangujam and the user is User:Kabiluwang. I am feeling pretty confident in these actions but welcome outside review. I will accept whatever outcome is decided here, as always. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't help but notice that some paragraphs in the article appear to be copypasted from the sources and sometimes only slightly modified. In fact, every single paragraph I've checked - not all of them - appears to have been copypasted into the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Further on this, it seems like every sentence except parts of the first and third ones are copypasted and I don't think these would really pass muster under A7. The article is extremely negative and reads like a character assassination attempt, even if sourced. I can't speak of the reliability of these sources. So long way round, I concur with deletion but with slightly different rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) HighInBC Thanks for the instant action. I support whatever you did. The article was created with intention to disparage its subject and it is evident from the users other edits. However I feel this article might merit a mainspace article if NPOV and other guidelines are followed. It can be recreated as a new by someone else or if this user wants to work on it, lets see their reaction on the talk page. Otherwise, let this "disparage page" remain buried. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Hiltpriam

Can someone take a look at User talk:Hiltpriam#June 2021 (perma)? I tried to explain verifiability and other policies but the response I've got so far has not been so civil or constructive. It looks like the user has made some good contributions and could be an asset in the long run, but his response today makes me doubt he's equipped to handle rather banal feedback. I'm certainly not looking for any sanction yet but I'd appreciate it if someone could review the discussion. Nardog (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I would like someone review the comments made by Nardog. I have tried to improve numerous pages over many months, I already know all Wikipedia policies.

not equipped to handle rather banal feedback? Banal is right.

Even here, Nardog claims he's tried to explain verifiability and other policies but the response I've got so far has not been so civil or constructive.

I already understand the need for verifiability and reliable sources. Everything I've done on Wikipedia can all be verified in reliable sources. I am not an expert in IPA and pronunciation so would otherwise leave it to the experts but the pronunciation of Stansfield (see History of Stansfield for others who believe the pronunciation is not worth including because it's so obvious) and Stansfeld is identical (but without any reliable source for Stansfeld). That's why I've had to explain it in terms of the origins of the name from the placename.

What I have objected to is being treated like a dunce who can't understand Wikipedia policies which I have always observed and done everything I can to fulfill. I'm not interested in childish games like undoing and redoing. Perhaps Nardog could reconsider his 'undo'ing of people's edits without FIRST enquiring with them about whether they had considered a matter. If you want to suspend me for minding my own business and quietly trying to improve pages (with reliable sources whenever possible) then so be it.

Apparently Nardog needed to warn me against making personal attacks even though I've never made one?

Having never been reported or been subject to this kind of 'attack' from anyone on here before -sorry if I've replied in the wrong place/got something wrong with the subst:AN-notice note. Hiltpriam (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of indefinitely salted article titles

Like with Xeno's attempt to tidy up our catalogue of indefinitely move-protected pages, I've noticed we have quite a few indefinitely protected titles. Over 40000, in fact (quarry:query/55670 for indef, quarry:query/55671 for >2022 expiries). Browsing through these gives the impression that hardly any are relevant today, especially with our increase in new page reviewing and title blacklisting. Anarchyte (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly large number. I think a review would be reasonable to unprotect any broad categories of pages. For example, I still think we should be dropping full protection down to ECP for pages with pending drafts. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say we have at least 1000 different variants of "hagger" protected, eg: H & then an R ?, H and-then-some R?, .һ.а.6.6.е.Г?, , ,ҥ, ,а, ,ҩ, ,ҩ, ,е, ,ґ. All of these are from 2008. Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Just started browsing the first list and I'm seeing a lot of these that could be valid redirects to existing pages ($UICIDEBOY$ immediately was one I saw). Also is Grawp still an issue now, regarding the "hagger" articles? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, impersonation is still an issue. Grawp is still around but complaining about gender issues instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also noticed this. Wikipedia troll, Wikipedia trolls, Lalalalala, and Lalalala have all been valid redirects I've made over the last hour or so of perusing the list. Anarchyte (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Your 2022+ expiry query is actually showing all non-indefinite protections; you don't have enough digits in the timestamp comparison. Timestamps are more easily compared as strings instead: you can just write pt_expiry >= '2022' AND pt_expiry != 'infinity'. —Cryptic 13:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC))

Ah, thanks Cryptic. Modified accordingly. Anarchyte (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see the point in investing effort in a big historical review, but I certainly agree with Primefac that ECP should be the standard level of "strong protection", with admin-only being used only in exceptional circumstances. And my guess is that in any situation where ECP isn't strong enough, blocking the offending users is probably a better tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• So yes there are a lot of Special:ProtectedTitles but is this worth the effort to deal with - probably not. Barring a specifically targeted query, is there actually a problem that needs work? I doubt our readers and editors are really missing out on !!suck my balls!!, Hi vicki!!!!!!!!!!!, or This smells very nice. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  With regard to "pages with a draft pending", yes, because it slows down the review process when a non-admin reviewer has to request unprotection of a protected article just to accept a valid draft. With regard to clearly silly names like those you have invoked, well, clearly not. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Perhaps not, Xaosflux, but I still think it might be a worthwhile exercise to run through a few of them and see if any can become redirects (as mentioned above). Also, it's highly likely that a vast majority of the pages would never be recreated which indicates they're unnecessarily protected. Removing them would make our maintenance statistics more accurate as well as make our protected pages list more relevant to today's encyclopedia. Perhaps reducing any possibly contentious protections to a three-year temporary full salt or indefinite ECP and removing protection from every other page, while keeping pages like Sample Page and Name of the suggested article to be created indefinitely sysop protected, could be an alternative. With this said, I'm not sure we need titles like Make an article or Create new article protected given we've got these all as redirects to Help:Your first article. Anarchyte (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Name of the suggested article to be created looks like it was from a template. A search doesn't find anything, but it was created in 2006 and 2007 so any template that was used is likely to have been edited or deleted since then. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Peter James: Perhaps we don't even need those protected. Creating mainspace pages is a lot harder for new users now than back then. I've been looking through the list again and there's only like one in every 50 that actually needs protection. Anarchyte (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• No to ECP indefinite or otherwise for salted titles. Salted titles should be fully protected for a set period of time and for ones with no purpose should be indefinite. On 30 May, Liz ECP Sanket Mhatre as a G4. It was recreated as Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) and QuiteUnusual moved it to Sanket Mhatre. Because QuiteUnusual is extended confirmed they were able to move it without any warning that the page had been deleted. So unless editors are going to get a warning pages should be full salted. Of course I have no idea how often this happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, pages that are repeatedly recreated are typically done so by persistent new editors. I thought an editor who is extended confirmed would be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices and understand that an article deleted through an AFD discussion shouldn't be recreated in the main space of the project. I advise editors who want to write an article about a subject deleted through an AFD to write a draft and submit it to AFC for review. I thought fully protecting a page, unless it is a page title that is obviously for vandalism only, would disallow an experienced editor from submitting an article that is superior in writing and sourcing, to a deleted version of that article. In my view of Wikipedia, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version. I guess in this case, QuiteUnusual moved a page through the Move function without seeing that that page had been repeatedly deleted at the new title. If I had to identify a mistake, it would be that Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) hadn't been salted, too, although it is hard to predict every title variation that editors can come up with to get around page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In my own experience, as someone who has a good number of not-salted-but-repeatedly-recreated pages on my watchlist, the new pages are found not when they're created, but when they're moved back to the most-appropriate title. We cannot predict every variation, but if we trust that the gnomes will do their jobs properly (which they do) then we'll eventually notice the recreations.

As a minor note, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version.... that would be WP:AFC. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: our monitoring of new pages is good enough to catch these out when they happen. In my opinion, and with further consideration after what I said above, we should be removing every salted protection put in place because of notability from before 2015 and changing every other notability-related salt from post 2015 to temporary five year full/ECP protection with rolling five year protections if it keeps happening (this would have to be a policy change, though). We can leave vandalism titles indefinitely protected with no problem. Anarchyte (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Most vandalism titles don't need full protection, as very few vandals repeatedly become extended confirmed users. Indefinite protection is also unnecessary in most cases, as it's so unlikely that the same titles will be used again. It also fails to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia sucks was protected, so Wikipedia sucks cock and Wikipedia sucks dick were created. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

While this is true, is there a need to lower the protection of obvious vandal target pages to EC? firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why we would need to lower protection for these either - they're not articles that will ever be notable, many will never be redirects, and "please unsalt, I want to write an article on a notable topic but I can't because it's salted" requests seem infrequent. I'm just worried we're creating work that will create more work. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't more work if there is a script that can be used. A time limit should be specified for all. Most were only created once, or were protected within a week of the first deletion, and Wikipedia:Deny recognition could be relevant for some. They were also created before Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation. Peter James (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for action here. Most of these titles will never be used, and for the rare exception WP:RPP exists. We don't need to create more admin work for ourselves by fiddling around with these protections to no clear benefit to the project. Sandstein 10:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sandstein, genuinely curious, how is this making more work for admins? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Deciding which pages to unprotect and actually unprotecting them. And then cleaning up the vandalism that may result from the unprotection. Sandstein 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed with Sandstein. I'm really not convinced it's worth the effort to screw around with all these pages just to make it easier for future vandals to enlighten our readers with such fantastic pages as Nigger-Jew and Dickface. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  This is just cherry picking though, isn't it? It's like 1 on 25 (or less) on avg that's like that. Most aren't, especially once you get past the initial Quarry pages of symbols/special characters (which skew towards being vandalism). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I someone can generate a list of my salted titles, I'd be glad to go through them. BD2412 T 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

BD2412 isn't that just Special:ProtectedTitles? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know which ones on the list are titles salted by me. Even my own protection log has many more titles than those that are merely salted. BD2412 T 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I missed that. Try https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/55807. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Most things I have salted are due to repeated recreation post-AfD or other deletion process. A few are titles purporting to be contact information for call girls/escorts. I don't think there is anything that I would unprotect. BD2412 T 17:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros2

Huh guys this is strange. This guy User:Nyxaros2 has a very strange signature. The signature links to his user page and User talk:FMEINDIA. This is extremely super strange as the user being linked to with the second link is a different user to the first link. You can see his signature on my talk page. 122.60.170.191 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that Nyxaros2 attempted to delete this report. I have no comment about the IP's editing as I've not looked into it, but his concerns about Nyxaros2's signature are valid. Additionally, not only is the talk link wrong, but the name of the signature is TRUMP2024, which isn't representative of his username. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P states, A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Nyxaros2, please fix the link in your signature and change the wording to represent your username. — Czello 08:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting signature, and their user page gives me pause with a userbox stating "This user does not support the LGBT community.". Their signature links to a blocked account. I hear quacking. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Additionally, his very first edit was to comment on a WP:EWN thread (where he his signature read WikiHelper200). This indicates he's not a new user. — Czello 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also just threatened the IP: Any further edits and this IP will be blocked.

A quick check shows productive editing from the IP so I have replaced the warning with a welcome. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User has been indeff'd. — Czello 08:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We already have a User:Nyxaros. Whatever other policy violations they may be doing, the new user Nyxaros2 knows this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is the same editor that was blocked recently who attacked other editors including me. ภץאคгöร 17:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of 30/500 protection

• Stolperstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Relevant Arbcom motion

On 31 May, Piotrus requested at El C's talk page that Stolperstein and History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II be protected due to some recent edits that covered by the above arbcom motion. Since El C was not active at the time, he posted on my talk and asked me to take a look. I saw that Ymblanter had already protected the Deblin and Irena article, but I took a look at Stolperstein and did see some recent edits by non-EC accounts which appeared to fall within the subject area (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The amount of disruption wouldn't have been sufficient to make me think about protection normally, but given that the wording of that motion (it's not just disruptive editing which is prohibited - non-EC accounts are not permitted to edit the topic area at all, and the prohibition may be enforced preemtively with ECP), I thought that Piotrus's request was reasonable and applied indef ECP.

This morning, Buidhe has posted on my talk that she feels the protection is inappropriate on the grounds that the article isn't sufficiently within the subject area. It seems related to me, but this is not an area of the project that I am particularly well-versed in, so invite opinions from other admins on whether my protection should stand. Thanks in advance; I'll go template everyone I mentioned here. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerning History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II , it was extended confirmed protected by TonyBallioni indefinitely a year ago [102] (since the article has been moved twice afterwards, the protection does not appear in the log). More recently, I fully protected the article for three days responding to RFPP request; there was edit-warring ongoing. After protection has expired, I was asked to restore the extended confirmed protection. I considered the request to be reasonable and restored it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Stolperstein, the article is clearly related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II, so I would say the motion applies. This means that article can be extended confirmed protected pre-emptively. On the other hand, the rejected edit seems perfectly valid to me, and it should be discussed at the talk page rather than reverted by one side of the dispute on procedural grounds.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this is within scope for the sanction and a reasonable admin action. The Stolpersteine are clearly "related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II". However the sanction does not mandate protection, and since so little of the article has to do specifically with Poland, I think I would lean towards reverting contributions violating the spirit of the sanction, rather than preemptively protecting, unless the protection would be warranted generally. I haven't reviewed in great detail and so I have no comment on whether or not that's the case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep protected. I looked through the history of Stolperstein, and in particular the series of edits around the 29th and 30th of May 2021 relating to the citation to The Telegraph. I can see how initially it was judged to be an unreliable blog post, since it was cited to pressreader, which on first glance, looks like a blog. But the underlying article was just a reprint of an item in The Telegraph, which WP:RSNP says is a WP:RS. In any case, I don't see that there was any actual abusive editing going on here and I would have preferred to use less drastic means. On the other hand, the arbcom motion is pretty clear; all non-EC editors are prohibited from editing this article. My take on the wording of the motion is that it's essentially, "We hereby ECP all articles in this subject area by fiat. As a practical matter, we're not going to run around, find them all, and physically click the "protect" button, but it should be treated as if we had done that. And, when these articles do get drawn to any admin's attention, clicking that button is what they're supposed to do". So, I really can't argue that the ECP should be lifted here. I do wish arbcom had given admins more wiggle room on this, but given the history of editing in this general subject area, I can see why they felt the need to swing such a heavy hammer. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Briefly, as I'm a bit in transit atm. Had I been around to respond to this request on my talk page, I would have granted Piotrus' protection request at ECP level and would have declined Buidhe's unprotection and/or downgrade request. Mostly, because I disagree with her assertion that little mention of Poland on the page means that its contents are "tangential," WP:APL-wise. El_C 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• This appears to be 500/30 working exactly as intended. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• The permanent protection of Stolperstein article makes about as much sense as permanently protecting the article of any politician anywhere in the world whose opinion on the Israeli Arab conflict is mentioned in their article. In that article, "Poland" is only mentioned three times; the vast majority of the memorials are installed in other countries. We're supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That isn't going to be the case if every single article that is tangentially related to some conflict area is under ECP. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  What is relevant is not how often Poland is mentioned in the article but whether ongoing disruption is specifically related to the topic of Poland in WWII. For the sake of the argument, is a president of Honduras would recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel, and this part of the article about him would be constantly vandalized, for example by changing Israel into Occupied Palestine, the PIA is going to be applied even if this is a minor part of the article. In the particular case of Stolperstein, as I wrote above, I think the edit is valid, and there was no disruption, but I would certainly not lift the protection on the ground that the article is ineligible.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think "30/500 protection" is an excellent idea, and it can or should be extended to BLP pages of all people and all subjects which became a matter of significant political controversy, edit warring, or significant content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• While it would be nice to be able to protect only a section of an article in some cases, it is not technically possible (is anyone aware of a bug report or such which we could endorse for this to change in the future?). Anyway, I stand by my initial assessment that those articles were recently a target of obvious socks. Given that the entire 30/500 was introduced precisely after one highly active in this TA editor went rogue, got indeffed, and started a sockfarm, this just reinforces the reality that they likely still seem to be around and we will need to keep protecting this TA for the foreseeable future. It is terrible indeed how much damage a single individual has wrought, but there is nothing we can do except denying them their toys. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus in theory, you could break the section you want to ECP out into a subpage which you transclude in the main page, then ECP the subpage. But that's really ugly and complicated and I'm not seriously suggesting we do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of RD2 redaction

I am asking uninvolved administrators to review my use of revision deletion. I deleted the edit summary of this edit under WP:RD2 for violating WP:BLPCRIME. Joe Roe challenged this redaction. I explained that, per Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples, accusing an identifiable individual of a specific insulting or morally depraved crime without proper BLP sourcing for the claim is usually an appropriate use of revision deletion under RD2. Joe was not satisfied by this explanation. Rather than continue our interpersonal dispute, I am asking for uninvolved administrators to determine (1) whether the edit summary is appropriate under our BLP policy and (2) whether my use of revision deletion was appropriate under RD2. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, the edit summary did not accuse anyone of having committed a crime, but rather noted that in certain jurisdictions, something could constitute an offence. That might sound nitpicky: but it's precisely that kind of nuance that needs to be emphasised to prevent over-use and thereby weakening of the [principle (a similar example would be the confusion we sometimes see whereby noting something is litigable is then itself confused with a legal threat: there's a difference between describing what something is / and calling it something). ——Serial 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. The summary said "[specific person] broke [link to specific law]" — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If we stated that the same thing in an article we'd soon scrub it under BLP policy. I believe this is an appropriate use of RD2 under BLP policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• At the risk of appearing so middle-of-the-road that I piss off everyone, I'd say it was a borderline inappropriate edit summary, a borderline over-reaction revdel, and a borderline thing-worth-arguing-about-afterwards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've been watching this dispute with increading frustration. The previous conduct of a candidate for adminship, and the management of a wiki-project, are useful things for our community to be discussing. The legality of that conduct in regions other than where the candidate lived, is neither directly relevant to that conduct, nor is it useful for us to discuss. Joe, I have always had considerable respect for you, and I appreciate that the substance of the point you made is important. You didn't have to use that edit-summary to embellish it, and you didn't have to double down on the edit-summary either. This RD2 was valid. Can we please return to discussing the more serious issues? For the record, though I !voted support, some of the points Joe brought up are making me seriously reconsider; so I'm absolutely not just piling on here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  The edit summary was an attempt to rhetorically stress the seriousness of Vami's former open fascism in the context of his subsequent activity on wiki. I totally take the point that extra emphasis was unnecessary to many, and will take it on board in future. But the reason I contested this is precisely because Wugapodes' (mis)use of revdel deflected the discussion at RfA away from the serious issue, to the benefit of a fellow member of his Discord-clique; and because I do not see how it was a policy-based use of RD2. If it is, then surely somebody can point me to the actual text that supports it? – Joe (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  You deflected it. I left a note on your talk page explicitly to avoid distracting the discussion. You insisted on talking about the revision deletion there instead, not even responding to my talk post until an entire day later. People were discussing how your edit summary crossed the line before I even got there so I don't agree with the blame being placed on me for distracting the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 10:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  not even responding to my talk post until an entire day later I had things to do, man. You posted on my talk page at 00:53 my time and I responded the following evening. As a linguist who teaches how language works to university students, would you say that the average reader is going to pay more attention to the juicy wikidrama of an admin revdelling a comment by a functionary, or the associated attempt to raise substantial concerns about our project's past failure to confront open fascism? – Joe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  I literally said on the RfA page To avoid further digression, anyone is free to raise concerns on my talk page. No one made any comments in that thread until 8 hours later when you jump in claiming that my redaction was an attempt to expunge uncomfortable truths instead of replying on your talk page--where I left a message 12 hours prior--or on my talk page--where I directed further discussion to avoid digression. The average reader did ignore the "juicy wikidrama", Joe; over 25 editors commented on that RfA between my note of redaction and your response, and none of them were focusing on the "drama". In fact, many of them were focusing on the very topic you were concerned about. So yes, after that I came in hot and heavy, because I was caught off-guard by your response. I felt like I was being accused of not only misapplying our policies, but doing so out of some kind of political motivation to protect fascism. If someone ignored you, said you did your job wrong, and were aiding fascism, would you take that calmly on the chin? I'll admit that I gave what I got, and that did not help the situation, but I absolutely refuse to be smeared in public by mischaracterizations of me or my actions. I do respect you, Joe, which is why the accusations felt particularly hurtful. Because I thought you were a reasonable guy, I expected this to be nothing more than me saying "you did something silly", you saying "whoops" and then you going back to making the legitimate points made in the still visible content of your edit. That didn't happen. Instead I got accused of guilt by association, accused of having "dug up" some obscure essay to justify my actions when your own comment showed it was linked from the RevDel policy, getting strong armed by a functionary to either undo my (valid) revision deletion or be taken to AN, and now I'm being blamed for sidetracking discussion despite verifiable evidence that I explicitly tried to avoid that. I think I have every reason to be frustrated by that, and it boggles my mind how to reconcile the reasonable editor whose insights I respect with the person shown to me the past two days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• The RD2 was valid, though I lean a little Floqish direction. --Izno (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Izno: Given your recent remarks about me on the Discord server you administer, you are clearly not fully objective about matters concerning me. I would appreciate it if you would bear that in mind, and perhaps in the interests of transparency note it for others, if you are going to comment in discussions like this. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Valid enough. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• You may or may not agree that what I said was wise, but my argument is that there is no policy basis for deleting it. I don't know where Wugapodes dug up Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples, but it isn't a policy page, is hardly ever cited in discussions, and has barely been edited since it was created a decade ago. So while I could quibble about whether my comments matches that 'example', I don't see the point. The actual text of WP:BLPCRIME says that must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed a crime. There's no prohibition and no mention of revdel. The actual text of WP:RD2 says that it applies to grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material [...] slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value (which my comment isn't) and specifically excepts factual statements [and] conduct accusations (which my comment is). Before Wugapodes over-reacted (prompted it seems by an off-wiki discussion with the candidate about the RfA) Barkeep49 had already said I gave serious consideration as to whether this was eligible for R2 revdel and decided it isn't. Since I also used to be an oversighter, I think I can reasonably claim to have a decent idea of where the line is myself. Again you may or may not agree with me that this was a good time to push that line, but there are good reasons that we don't use revdel to delete comments we find objectionable in project discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't "dig it up". If you looked at the link you gave, the page is literally linked from WP:REVDEL and has been for years. If you read the page you would have seen it. Clearly we cannot "reasonably claim [you] have a decent idea of where the line is" since the contents of the revdel policy come as a surprise to you and multiple administrators have told you that you crossed the line. You also seem to have taken to lying, claiming that I was prompted it seems by an off-wiki discussion with the candidate about the RfA. I had no such conversation, and even looked through my discord messages from that day to see if I had forgotten a conversation with Vami. I did not have one, and since you've been digging through the logs for dirt you should be aware of that. On what basis do you think I was prompted by the candidate? — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    A link at the bottom of a policy page doesn't make something policy. Multiple administrators have also said that it wasn't over the line. More to the point, you still haven't been able to produce any policy that says that something can be revdel'd merely for stating that something someone did is a crime – a basic requirement of using your tools. Please just admit you over-reacted and reverse this rather than making us drag it out any further.

    On what basis do you think I was prompted by the candidate? You are a regular on the Discord channel; my comment was being discussed there (because the candidate, nominator and half the supporters at that point are also Discord regulars); shortly thereafter you appeared on an RfA you had never tocuhed to revdel my edit. It's not a smoking gun but it's not exactly hard to connect the dots either. – Joe (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    You misrepresent the REVDEL policy, conveniently omitting important text. RD2 exempts "mere" factual statements and "mere" incivility. What you said is not a "mere factual statement", you came to a legal conclusion based on your own original research (as Barkeep told you at RfA). It was not "mere" incivility. You weren't calling someone names or being snarky, you were making a specific criminal accusation and asserting it as true. Your comment was not exempted on it's face. REVDEL states that serious violations of the BLP policy are eligible for redaction. The BLP policy says Contentious material about living persons ... that is ... poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Unless you are German magistrate, your opinion is not a particularly strong source for whether someone is a criminal. The only way to remove the edit summary was through redaction The BLP policy also says that while some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, ... administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. As other editors have explained to you, claiming that someone broke a law for the purpose of harming their standing in the community rises to that level. It specifically allows deletion in this case, even in project discussions. The balance is to remove only what is necessary, and my redaction was only of your edit summary and not the revision text which I and others have said was not to that level. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    So we're again back to the reason for the revdel being that my comment was (potential?) defamation. In that case I'll just repeat that something has to be false to be defamatory. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• An unsourced suggestion that a specific individual committed a crime is a pretty textbook example of an appropriate time to use revision deletion, in my view, and depending on the crime can also warrant oversight per WP:OSPOL #2 (though not in this case). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 09:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  It was "sourced" (are we really applying WP:RS to a comment in an edit summary about a pseudonymous Wikipedian?) in the sense that the 'accusation' is a plain statement of fact, supported with a diff, that absolutely nobody, not even the subject, has actually disagreed with. I get that people think that mentioning illegality is scary and should be suppressed, but where is the policy basis for that? And if the mere suggestion makes something revdel- or oversightable then where on earth do we stop? In the previous discussion, Chess pointed out the irony that Wugapodes' original explanation for the revdel, that he deleted my edit because it was 'defamation', was itself an accusation that I committed a crime, so should fall under the same logic. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't claim to be any kind of expert in German law, but it appears that at least one person has suggested it is not a plain statement of fact. But yes, I do think that if you are going to say that someone has committed a crime, you need a source to support it, even (or perhaps especially) if that person is a Wikipedian (pseudonymous or otherwise). Otherwise we might end up down a rabbit hole where editors are describing one another as having committed crimes, possibly in jurisdictions in which they don't even reside, which seems a more concerning slippery slope to me than the one of revision deleting such comments against fellow editors. As for the defamation question, I assume Wugapodes meant that the edit summary was "potentially defamatory" (our typical wording), rather than that you were in violation of defamation law, but they could have worded it better and the irony is not lost. For what it's worth, I entirely agree with your !oppose vote at the RfA and intend to vote similarly myself soon—but I don't agree that saying that this RfA's subject broke the law was necessary, appropriate, or should be retained in edit history (though of course we've well Streisanded ourselves out of that by this point). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Also, adding a note to say that I pinged the oversighters mailing list to suggest their expertise might be useful here; unfortunately poorly timed just before Joe's 10:47 comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, if Floq, GW, and others agree that this was valid, I drop my objection. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Valid revdel, in my opinion. Per WP:MINREF, contentious information on living persons is required to be sourced inline wherever it appears on this website, period. That means in infoboxes, on talk pages, in short descriptions, and yes, in edit summaries. If there's a contention that the edit summary contains an egregiously BLP-violating comment (which a plain statement that a person committed a crime would most certainly be) without a plain link to a reference supporting that statement, then it should be revdel'd. WP:BLPREMOVE also dictates that violations of the policy are to be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And also: we ought to be conservative in our approach to BLP information; if there's any good-faith reasonable interpretation that an edit summary is a BLPvio then just do it. Revdels can always be reviewed, as we're doing right now, and can be undone later if discussion determines the action was not necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Per GorillaWarfare: Textbook example of an edit summary that qualifies for redaction. Risker (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Per GorillaWarfare and Risker, this is exactly the sort of thing redaction is intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'll just note that while I choose not to revdel when I saw it, after being pinged by Wugapodes I didn't see any issue with their analysis and support the revdel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• I was pinged here so even though I'm not an admin I'll give my opinion. I haven't seen the edit summary so I can't speak to specifics but any unsourced claim that a living person committed a crime should be removed unless it can be sourced to a criminal conviction. Even if the claim is only by implication it should still be removed. That's the reason why I said what I said and why I believe it's hypocritical that Wugapodes said that "defamation is a crime in your jurisdiction" when he was talking about why it was justified to delete an edit summary. I believe revdel would be justified in both cases; not that it wasn't justified in either. Additionally, I'd like to clarify I don't have a problem with calling things "defamatory" in general. The problem I have is with the implication that someone committed criminal defamation; defamation is typically a civil matter and wouldn't fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Norwaytheway (talk · contribs)

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.

---

FYI, this user, Norwaytheway (talk · contribs) has only had vandalism edits, and no other contributions. S/he seem to have an interest in inserting the term "Chase Samole" [103][104][105]

-- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

They haven't edited since being warned by Oshwah back on March 26, so I'm not sure any further action needs to be taken. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Praxidicae

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.

---

It was only a matter of time before another editor (in this case User:Praxidicae) is reported here, as I also had an impersonator blocked above. This user is continuously reverting me (one of their reason was simply "no"), claiming that I was edit warring on article for 3 days on the same topic (the term "Kurtuluş Savaşı") which is not true. They also use machine translation and have no opinion on the subject (as stated by them on the article's talk page), and accuse me of "pushing a narrative" just because I corrected a paragraph and added "according to" to maintain better encyclopedic writing and neutrality since there were no other sources to verify it as mainstream info. At least another warning is needed for this disruptive and incivil behaviour. ภץאคгöร 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of my incivility toward you. Further, I'd encourage you to actually engage in the talk page conversation since you've been edit warring for several days with multiple people before bringing this to ANI. Thanks. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Further, this misrepresents the entire situation, their first two or three edits to this article today were removing sourced content on the basis that it was "part of an agenda" with no explanation and in fact, their edit warring goes back several days for other matters on this article. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

One of their reason was simply "no" {{cn}} BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've already provided, the editors can look to your talk page for further baseless accusations. And again, you wrote "several days". You have no right to brush other editors off and expect them to communicate with you. Before today, my edit on the page was reverted because two editors found that "general neutrality problem" had to be more specific for further action on the article, and it was discussed on the talk page. I've rephrased/fixed today's "agenda" writing with a more appropriate/encyclopedic tone, but you reverted because you couldn't find what "agenda" I "pushed" in the machine translation due to the fact that it was "not at all neutral". Anyways, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the diffs of my supposed incivility toward you and the edit summary where I simply left a "no" while reverting you. You should probably read WP:ASPERSIONS, though I suspect you're already familiar given your block log. But you'll also need to be specific about what action you're proposing against me, Nyxaros. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Civility, insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. This is one of the "no"s. Others that apply here are lying (starting with "several days edit warring on the same topic" and "removing sourced content with no explanation"), and trying to show me out of context to give the impression that I did something bad (starting with "pushing an agenda"). It is also not recommended to constantly talking about the past activity, this discussion has nothing to do with it. Snarky comments are also not civil: "you're already familiar given your block log". Anyways, I'm just gonna keep repeating myself and waste my time, so again, I hope necessary action will be taken against this user. ภץאคгöร 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting facts but my edit summary was (Undid revision 1027586493 by Nyxaros (talk) no and given your edit warring you better start discussing this stuff on the talk page). You've also failed to provide a single diff of my supposed incivility in this matter. There is nothing that forbids bringing up past conduct in context, which is a persistent problem for you, given the history of your talk page where you leave uncivil edit summaries and haven't responded to a single concern as far as I can tell. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) Having read the revision history of Turkish War of Independence and lso User talk:Praxidicae, I can see no foundation for Nyxaros's complaint. However, I can see a lack of willingness on their part to discuss with other editors, including an edit summary I don't have to discuss it, ..., and edit warring with several editors over this article during the past week. A warning for Nyxaros over their behaviour around this article may well be appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Given User:Nyxaros's edit warring on Turkish War of Independence (to the point it had to be protected) and their general uncivil comments to other editors, I am quite surprised that they raised this issue at tis noticeboard, because there is only one editor that is in danger of being sanctioned here, and that's themselves. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x3 I am involved, given that I wrote much of the section where the dispute is at, but this issue seems mostly resolved already. Nyxaros kept removing a paragraph they didn't like, it was restored because it was sourced. Really, Nyxaros should have taken it to the talkpage straight away instead of trying to communicate via edit summary. They seem to have given up on trying to remove it wholesale and have now instead copyedited the paragraph so it conformed closer to their reading of the source, which now provides a helpful point to have a discussion on. This is still effectively a content dispute, and I don't see a favorable outcome for Nyxaros if they press this thread. This now needs a discussion, and Nyxaros I hope you chime in at the talk page :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Note that I've WP:ECP'd the page for 3 months, for reasons that go beyond this latest series of edit warring. Also: 🌈, where were you when I needed you (diff)? El_C 22:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I would not say it's been resolved as this is a larger behavioral issue, not for me but Nyxaros and for that reason I think this should result in a sanction, whether it's a block or a topic ban, I can't say but I don't think the first two blocks got through, their unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion, as evidenced by their talk page, going back more than a year is just reverts of valid attempts to discuss but I think a lengthy block is in order. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Prax, was that to me? If so, I didn't mean to imply that this protection action was a resolution to this particular dispute (especially seeing as the OP is already at the ec user right). El_C 22:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, that was to Eek. So many edit conflicts :') And man, wish I'd seen that earlier ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x4 Answering @Black Kite: and @John B123:: I agree, but note that this is just one of many articles User:Nyxaros is edit warring on. I count (at least) four edit wars in the last three days alone. I had already started a report (see below) prior to seeing this. Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Daily edit warring, incivility and battleground behavior - proposed ban for Nyxaros

I propose a ban for Nyxaros whose non-stop edit warring (literally at least one edit war per day), incivility and battleground behavior are highly disruptive. The last days alone are evidence enough.
Edit warring In the last days alone, Nyxaros has actively edit warred at Turkish War of Independence [106], [107], [108], Jupiter's Legacy [109], [110], [111], Earwig and the Witch [112], [113], [114] and Turkish War of Independence again [115], [116]. We are literally seeing more than one edit war by Nyxaros every day.
Incivility Nyxaros's attitude seems to be that they are above everyone else, refusing to discuss their edit warring and insulting others. To Praxidicae's effort to discuss, Nyxaros claimed that "'NO' is a perfectly valid reason for editors like you" [117], an IP was dismissed by just "troll" [118]. When I tried to provide an uninvolved perspective on an edit warring report [119] , Nyxaros claims I "continue to harass them" [120] even though that was my second interaction ever with them, the first had been to revert their edit warring in one article. The daily edit warring (quite literally) and the attacks on every user who dares challenge them shows that this is a user with a very serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. The report above by Nyxaros against Praxidicae is just the final straw. Based on this pattern of constant edit warring across articles literally every day, daily outbursts against other users, and overall battleground mentality, I suggest banning Nyxaros would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree with this assessment. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, another editor who claimed that I removed content because I didn't like it even though I showed my reason. It's not my problem if the editors do not present a valid reason for their edits. I didn't breach 3RR in any of the pages. I don't consider "no" a good reason, thus I wrote it on the talk page. There are recently some editors who continue to target me mainly because I edited Turkish War of Independence page. As you can see by their repeated sentences that exaggerate the situation, Jeppiz is one of them, and they are trying to contact me despite the fact that I do not want to. "Troll" was literally a troll who called me a "vandal" and a "loser" before getting blocked by the way. ภץאคгöร 22:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to contact you; I am obliged to notify you about an AN report. Period. Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you simply can't or won't see that my revert adequately explained why I restored the content, it wasn't just "no" but you are in fact edit warring in multiple places and your combative behavior here makes me think you cannot collaborate on this project and this warrants at minimum a lengthy block. Also do not move others comments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• A skim of editing history shows frequent edit wars [121][122] and poor responses to talk page messages. I haven't observed them pass 3RR, but I suppose it's edit warring nonetheless. I'm not sure about this site ban proposal, however. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Tbh, skimming the UTP history further, I'm not sure there's a single talk page message (except the ones by bots) where Nyxaros hasn't removed the section without comment while assuming bad faith in the edit summary. I get that every now and then you can get frivolous UTP messages, but every single one going back years? That would more likely indicate that the editor is incapable of collaboration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is one reason I proposed a ban rather than a block. I fear this is a user incapable of working with others, and that their net contribution to WP is negative. Too much edit warring and conflicts in relation to productivity. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't move others' comments. There are edit conflicts and my replies are probably making the disorder. ภץאคгöร 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

One revert is edit warring? Why is what happened three or more months ago relevant? If you are going to ban me for fallacious reasons, you should definitely ban User:Praxidicae and User:Jeppiz. Thanks to my targeters, the situation changed very quickly from their disturbing behaviour to my talk page and who I reply to/whose edits I revert. Yes, with more than 10,000 edits, my net contribution is negative and the last three days activity on some pages created too much edit warring and hindered all the productivity. Congratulations guys. Please don't stop writing articles with Google Translate and complaining when others correct them. Bye. ภץאคгöร 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You are making a good case against yourself. No, one revert is not edit warring. But as the diffs show, you frequently revert three times on the same article during the same day. You did it yesterday, and the day before, and the day before. Three reverts are definitely edit warring. As for you calling us "targeters" and claiming we are "writing articles with Google Translate", and claiming anyone who called out your behavior should be banned, Well, thanks for proving so forcefully our point about your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and lack of civility. (PS I first came across you four days ago, I have reverted you once. If that's what you call "targeting", well, good luck). Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's entirely relevant, because it demonstrates a consistent pattern of behaviour (distinct from going through a phase or getting emotional over a specific piece of content). It's not so much the edit warring as it is a philosophy that anyone who implies you did something less than perfectly, or just disagrees with you, is incompetent and acting out of malice. Click this link and take a scroll down and tell me with a straight face that isn't an accurate characterisation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2021 (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 functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of DGG are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks DGG for his service as a CheckUser. Maxim_(talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to functionary team

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Issue with an account that is possibly a factory of propaganda editor(s)

• Moved to ANI Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down

Images that appear on English Wikipedia's Main Page should be protected to avoid NSFW vandalism on the Main Page. Images soon appearing on the Main Page & hosted on Commons are usually automatically protected by KrinkleBot. Wrinkle is, KrinkleBot is down.

With KrinkleBot down, please manually protect images that will soon appear on the Main Page. Images hosted at Commons can either be protected at Commons by Commons administrators, or temporarily uploaded to English Wikipedia and protected here.

DYK conversation is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#KrinkleBot is down, created this to let our other Main Page friends know. Shubinator (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like KrinkleBot is back in action. Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I to upload of new file from gallery of my mobile

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 upload new file but it shows some error please do corrected that we can upload a file and people may know what that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushan m bhandari (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the User_talk:Bhushan_m_bhandari#top it looks like they user has managed to upload some files. Jeepday (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2021 (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.

Concerns by User:Storm598

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 user [Beyond My Ken] is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia. In many cases, he criticized me maliciously to justify such biased technology. (I said I wouldn't edit the US political document for three months because I didn't want to cause trouble with this user. But looking back on my edit, I don't know what the hell I did wrong in contributing to American political page.)

• Although the Blue Dog Coalition is commonly referred to as the "Conservative Democrats" and the Republican Governance Group is generally referred to as the "Liberal Republicans", the user denies it and makes a POV statement. #, #
  • The Blue Dog Coalition page even carried out serious original research. Without any source, the user described that there was a "right-wing" in the organization's "Blue Dog Coalition". I thought this was an obvious original research before, but it was hard to point out that the user was maliciously selling me at the time. See history of page in the last three months.#
  • In addition, while the Republican Governance Group has no source referred to as "moderate conservatism", the user maintains the POV view that the former is right and the latter is wrong, despite numerous sources referred to as "liberal".

In addition, the user lacked a very good understanding of East Asian politics, but he also decided that my editing was inappropriate and reversed it. Still, Beyond My Ken are attacking me for my lack of understanding of American politics. However, I have never used biased techniques in American political page.

• User:Beyond My Ken also twisted my argument and maliciously criticized me in the Talk of Law and Justice page.#
• User:Beyond My Ken interrupted my legitimate Wikipedia editing countless times. #, #, #, etc.)

I think it's actually a threat to a new user, me, to repeatedly mention in Talk that the user will post me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Although I'm not perfect at editing American political documents, Beyond My Ken has conned me to justify his no source POV contribution. --Storm598 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken always threatens to put me on the Administrators' Noticeboard, saying I lack understanding of American politics when Beyond My Ken justifies Beyond My Ken's no source POV views. On the other hand, I have never done this to Beyond My Ken.--Storm598 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: it says in ultra-large bold writing in a coloured box at the top that you need to notify subjects who you make a thread about. I have dropped BMK a line for you. Please do not forget again, as it clearly indicates you didn't read the instructions before posting Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that as Storm598 is banned from BMK's talk page, he did not think he should. Maybe he forgot that notifications required by policy are one of the exceptions. P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what P-K3 said. Thank you for understanding me. I just sent it to BMK's talk.--Storm598 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, because when I notified you that I didn't want you to post to my talk page anymore (for reasons that are probably obvious to the readers of this laborious thread), I wrote: ...unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. [123] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: Why are you posting this complaint? What outcome do you hope to achieve? SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: BMK often goes back almost reflexively every time I edit some pages on Wikipedia. Clearly, even if it was my reasonable editing, it is often deleted by BMK's arbitrary judgment. Every time I edit American politics, they keep bothering me that I don't understand American politics and that they'll take issue with my editing on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, he mentioned me in the 'Administrators' noticeboard' before, exaggerating or distorting me. I'm not saying that we should sanction BMK within Wikipedia, but please refrain from doing so. I want the BMK to stop denouncing me with Xenophobia. I have a certain understanding of American politics, and BMK often does original research on American politics without sources on some pages. That's why I don't want BMK to branded or interrupt my editing. --Storm598 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I refer readers back to this discussion from March, in which Storm598 avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily imposing a 3-month "block" on himself, which he later interpreted as a 3-month topic ban from articles about American politics. Nevertheless, he has broken this voluntary TB several times since [124], [125], [126], under the impression, apparently, that the 3 months was over. (Since he imposed it on himself on March 16, it will be over on June 16.)

The essential problem -- reflected in Storm598's editing throughout Wikipedia, not just in the AP2 area -- is that they get their political information from an unnamed South Korean blog, and then uses that information to make changes on a wide variety of article throughout the encyclopedia, most of which concerns who is conservative, moderate and liberal. I'm not familiar with politics outside the US, so I cannot say if their changes to those articles are good or not, but I do know that when it comes to American politics, their definitions do not match up with those in conventional use, and the changes they make are therefore not helpful.

I continue to believe that Storm598 should be under an indefinite AP2 TB until they can show that their understanding of American politics is more grounded in reality than it currently is, but I'm not going to make the case for that. Those who are interested can read the discussion from March, Storm598's talk page, and their contributions to form their own conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I call on Storm598 to provide specific diffs of when I have reverted their edits since March 16, 2021 that did not involve American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what Storm598 means when they write "The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia." What are "'modern liberal' biased techniques"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the evidence that I get political information from the South Korean blog? I look for major media outlets in English and South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You said it yourself in one of our discussions. I'll dig up the diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Here you go: "I live in South Korea, the largest Korean wiki classifies the U.S. Democratic Party as a social liberal and social democratic party and the Democratic Party of South Korea as a social liberal and social conservative party." [127] This is the source you cited on Talk:California Democratic Party for making changes to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

# Is this what you're looking for? I didn't mention anything about the South Korean blog. For reference, I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea and only once mentioned how South Koreans perceive the California Democratic Party. The California Democratic Party is not considered a centrist at least in the context of U.S. politics, as there are many democratic socialists, and this is what many have pointed out before.--Storm598 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki/blog, same thing, they're both self-published sources, and you're clearly taking your views from one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not true that I don't understand American politics, it's just that you're blaming me. BMK did the original research without any source just by looking at the 'Republican Governance Group' page or the 'Blue Dog Collaboration' page. I'm not the only wiki user to protest your 'modern liberal' bias statement.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason for describing it as a modern liberal biased technique is simple.

• You claimed part of the Blue Dog was 'right-wing', but you didn't provide the source.
• You did not suggest that the Republican Governance Group is not a liberal or moderate organization, nor did you suggest a moderate conservative organization. On the other hand, I suggested a credible source.

American media and English-speaking academic sources also refer to the Republican Governance Group as "liberalism". Can't American media understand American politics more than BLM, which is just a wiki user?--Storm598 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my last comment here, as this is not the place to discuss content disputes. (1) Do not change your comments after they have been replied to except by striking out. (2) We have "articles" on Wikipedia, not "documents". I have told you this numerous times, but like the definition of American liberalism, you refuse to take it in. (3) Please provide a citation from a reliable source which refers to the Republican Governance Group as "liberal", in the American definition.

I think that readers can see the problem with Storm598: they have fixed views which are demonstrably wrong, and will not take in any factual corrections to those views, but instead continue to edit in accordance with those inaccurate views. Their behavior in this discussion shows how frustrating it is to interact with them, which can be verified by looking at their article talk page discussions involving other editors as well as myself. [128], [129]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't confirm that you responded. So I tried to correct it, but this is my mistake.(1) If RSS is not liberal in the American political context, then Blue Dog is not conservative in the American political context. The Blue Dog's propensity to vote is not much different from the New Democrat Coalition. (3)--Storm598 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And I think it's certainly malicious that you mentioned the Law and Justice.[130] I made it clear that I thought Law and Justice was a far-right party, but you accused myself of making a biased statement. You also think Law and Justice are anti-liberal far right. I think so too. However, the Law and Justice document did not originally describe the far-right, and in the end, you and I did not disagree.--Storm598 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hatting this because it's an irrelevant discussion about a WP:TPO issue. If an admin feels that the hatting is inappropriate, please undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And I'll ask you the other way around. Why did you erase what you wrote here?--Storm598 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) To my knowledge, I did not "erase" anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) No, you obviously erased what I wrote. # --Storm598 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC) See WP:TPO. You changed your comment after I responded to it. I corrected it back to the original version. We are not the Ministry of Truth, you dont get to re-write history and erase you mistakes. If you wanted to change it, the proper way to do so would be to cross out the "BLM" and replace it with "BMK", like this: BLM BMK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Actually, no, Beyond My Ken. You would do that if the original text was "BLM BMK" and you were striking the "BLM" part. When you replace something with something else (i.e. "change something"), you strike the old and underscore the new, as "BLM BMK". If you correct an editor on something like this, please do so correctly. You not only gave wrong information to Storm598 but other editors reading this as well. A more "advanced" case is when you are merely adding text without replacing anything. Since some editors use underscore for emphasis (which is discouraged in the guidance, presumably because it creates this ambiguity), best practice is to strike the last word preceding the inserted text and repeat it, as "She said it was yesterday. yesterday. But she was mistaken." This practice helps clarify that the underscoring is for inserted text, not emphasis. To my knowledge it is not included in the written guidance, however. Apologies for this off-topic but I felt the error was worth clearing up with the same level of visibility. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I see you took a WikiBreak from 28 October 2011 until 15 March 2021. [131] It looks like practice may have changed somewhat during your almost 10-year absence. I'll stand by my explanation, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I expected you might; I have that much experience with you. Don't make the mistake of assuming that my editing history is contained in the contribs for this IP address. I just might be a longtime registered editor in good standing, recently 99% retired but very occasionally dropping in a comment here and there (quite legally). See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments if you care. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I assume you won't mind revealing to an admin what your account is so that it can be verified that you've been editing with an IP, instead of with your account, "quite legally" - since you have nothing to hide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I sometimes advocated requirements for such disclosures by IPs, but I always lost. It appears that we presume innocence unless there is tangible evidence of abuse; i.e. the burden of evidence is on you, not me. I never saw a logged-out editor provide more disclosure than required because they had nothing to hide. You are free to file an SPI, and you are free to advocate for improvements to the system. I'm sorry but not surprised that you resort to such attack because you resent being publicly corrected on a minor TPG point. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"BMK" not "BLM".

You continue to confuse the classical definition of "liberal", by which almost every American politician is a liberal, and the very different definition used in American politics. By that definition, the modern Republican Party -- which used to have an actual liberal wing, more moderate than the Democratic liberal wing, but still verifiably liberal (Rockefeller, Javits etc.) -- no longer has any liberals in it: the furthest to the left it goes on the national level is a handful of moderates. You simply refuse to accept that a "liberal" in the US is not the same as a "liberal" in Europe or elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

BLM is a typo. I'm sorry about that. I support Black Lives Matter.--Storm598 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was possibly a reference to the Bureau of Land Management. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:The RGG is a clear 'liberal' group. It's just your opinion that there's no 'liberal' in modern Republicans. Many sources call RGG a 'liberal' group, and it's an original research to deny it. Authoritative sources call RSS 'liberal'. I know that the context in which 'liberal' is used in America is different from Europe. In the United States, 'liberal' usually refers to 'modern liberal'. That's why I wrote center-right 'conservative liberal' on purpose. On the other hand, RSS is rarely described as a conservative organization. Therefore, it is the Original Research that calls RSS 'moderate conservatism'.--Storm598 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not only my opinion, but the fact that you think so is a very good indication -- again -- that you really don't comprehend American politics. If this were an article, and I was making a claim to insert into the article, I could find innumerable citations from reliable sources which would back me up, but for the purposes of this discussion I am comfortable that 40 years of closely observing American politics -- not a foreign "wiki" -- tells me that it is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am obviously aware of this discussion, please stop pinging me. I have other articles to use my "'modern liberal' biased techniques" on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, RGG is still considered a 'liberal Republican'. An organization that is not conservative in general should not be described simply as conservative. It would be better not to write "ideology" at all on the infobox of the Republican Governance Group page as it is now. #, #--Storm598 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on the proper labels of these groups, what behavioral issue are you raising. Everything here is a content issue and this board does not determine who is right on content. It is not an appeals court or arbitrator or mediator. As far as I can tell, your only complaint is that BMK is telling you you are wrong on American political labels. That is an issue for the WP:DR process. The First law of holes also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that I do agree Beyond My Ken's edits in this area seem to display a basic ignorance of American politics. I was absolutely astonished to find that he did, in fact, add "right-wing" as a faction to the Blue Dog Coalition page; for reference, this is the most conservative faction of America's big-tent left-wing party. Right-wing is such a factually inaccurate label for this group that it boggles the mind - it's an astonishing factual error that is made even worse by the fact he did so without a citation and then edit-warred to try and force his change into the article. A similar situation is going on at Republican Governance Group, he straight-up removed several reliably sourced sections in the inbox, incorrectly claiming they were cited to a "Korean blog". This sort of editing has to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 19:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. Given BMK's great breadth of knowledge and long experience, I would argue that he displays not a basic ignorance of American politics as you claim, but rather a mastery of the topic area. The Blue Dog coalition is accurately characterized as the right-wing of the Democratic Party. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies described it as such in their publications, as only one example. This is like calling the old Rockefeller Republicans the left-wing of the Republican Party (according to the 1985 political science book Psychological Perspectives on Politics). The more important question here, is why anyone could possibly view this as erroneous or controversial. BMK appears to know the topic and is editing based on a plethora of good sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's similar to the situation with the Strasserites. The Strassers were not leftists in any absolute sense, but they did represent the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party; that is, the left-most portion of an entirely far-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not on par with the Nazi Party. RSS, far from advocating totalitarianism, has a social and cultural liberal orientation. Strassism is basically against liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG!! That was an analogy about relative positions within political parties, not a comparison of the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, which Viriditas also mentioned) with the Nazis. Do we have a CIR problem here?!

In any event, my mistake. I was fooled by Viridtas' comment into thinking that there might be some rational discussion breaking out. Outta here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean by bringing up the Nazi party. However, One Nation Conservatives (caucus) and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) pages mention "social liberalism" in addition to "conservative liberalism" or "liberal conservativeism" in the book Infobox. Similarly, what is the problem with referring to coservative "liberalism" in the infobox of RSS pages? Strassism is fascism, not socialism. However, RSS is a liberal organization. --Storm598 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hatting another discussion because it is partly unproductive, and partly irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh man, it's getting deep in here... PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC) That wasn't a terribly useful or helpful comment. Perhaps when you have nothing productive to say, you might actually consider occasionally saying nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) No, you miss the subtlety of my comment. It was basically disagreeing with Viriditas assessment. Mostly by comparing the situation to getting knee deep in bullshit. Does that clear it up for you? PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Your comment was as subtle as one of Lady Gaga's outfits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Conservative Democrats are part of the right-wing of the Democratic Party. What part of this is BS? Likewise, Progressive Democrats are part of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. How is this erroneous or controversial? Just because the modern Republican Party is a cult that has chosen to eject and banish anyone on the left-wing, liberal side of their party, doesn't mean the Democratic Party has done the same thing. Both parties used to have left, center, and right-wing members, but only the Republican Party has all but eliminated this distinction. For an example of how far out of touch the Republican Party is with reality, simply look at their categorization of Obama, Biden, and Harris as radical, left-wing Marxists. The vast majority of academic political scientists and historians categorize Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-right leaning, pro-capitalist Democrats. The Republican Party repeatedly brands right-leaning Democrats as radical leftists to promote the false idea that they alone can call themselves right-wing. This is a clearly false and transparent attempt to shift the Overton window and make center-right policy positions appear to be on the far left. Reasonable and rational people don't fall for this cultist propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Obama, Biden, and Harris are considered centrist or center-left social liberal. Living in a welfare state is what some Europeans perceive as a centre-right. If Obama, Biden, and Harris are center-rights, many culturally conservative Asian countries center-rights should be considered far-rights. Moderate liberals in the U.S. are center-left in the U.S. standard and cultural radical left-wing to center-left welfare policy in the East Asian standard. They are centre-right by Nordic or Canadian standards and in fact, it is not an objective analysis at all that they are centre-right. Social liberalism is often considered a center to center-left even by global standards. (Clearly, East Asia is culturally very conservative. American politics and culture are not as conservative as you might think.)--Storm598 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Only fringe, right-wing sources describe Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-left, social liberals. Obama's policies were often described as deeply conservative, with most academics describing him as a Rockefeller Republican, which makes Obama center-right as a Democrat. Enough has been written about Biden and Harris's extreme conservativism, that I feel you are either out of touch with the sources or are pushing a POV, such as the kind we find with the Unification Church or the Falun Gong. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) In South Korea, major center-right politicians such as Oh Se-hoon also oppose homosexuality. Donald Trump, the far-right in U.S. political standards, has practically implemented a discriminatory policy against LGBT, but he does not openly oppose homosexuality. Then should we consider South Korea's center-rightists as far-rightists? People like Obama and Hillary are never center-right by American standards, never center-right by non-Europe. Nordic standard should not work to judge American political standards. Social liberalism is generally a center-left ideology, even in Europe, except in Northern Europe or France. East Asian politics, without exaggeration, is really very far-right. I hate East Asian politics. I've been subjected to countless discrimination as an LGBT.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Only fringe, right-wing sources Oh gzz, it's getting even deeper! PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC) See The Washington Times and the The Epoch Times, both of which specialize in extremist, denialist rhetoric that falsely labels center-right Democratic policies and politicians as Marxist, radical left, and center-left. And both news sources are run and owned by religious cults, much like the Republican Party itself. If the shoe fits... Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The Washington Post, one of the leading "modern liberal" journalists in the U.S., also describes Joe Biden as a center-left. # They are by no means center-right.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The WaPo makes no such claim. The writer you cited argues that the party as a whole may have had to move center-left to subsume progressive Democrats, but the writer also says that this a major change from Biden's more conservative role in the former Obama admin. You're now twisting sources to support your claims. Biden has never been center-left and that article makes no such claim about Biden, mostly because it would be absurd. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I never thought Obama or Biden was a Marxist. They're basically a centrist or center-left because they support social liberalism based on the third path. Not all center-left are socialist or Marxist. Liberal center-left can also be established. And while social liberalism is generally not socialist, BUT it is clear that it is a centre-left.--Storm598 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Obama was center-right, not center-left. Go review his policy history and what political scientists say about him. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Neat, now you are ranting into BLP territory. I would advice against that! PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I literally cited their sourced Wikipedia pages. Explain how citing facts is "ranting" or a BLP violation? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Weird I looked at their pages, Wikipedia is not a RS btw, and it does not mention that they are owned by cults(blp vio), that republican party is a cult(crazy talk), or anything about shoes(no idea what you are on about). Please do keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Both media sources are owned by religious movements described as cults in their respective pages. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC) American liberals like Obama and Biden are never Marxists. But they are not even center-right. They are basically center to center-left Keynesian. And they are never culturally conservative either.--Storm598 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Biden isn't center-left, and that claim is just absurd. As for Obama, I'll quote myself from 2015: "Obama's policies were criticized as that of a center-right conservative who gave lip service to progressivism but rarely deviated from the conservative agenda set by his predecessor. His failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the zealous prosecution of more whistleblowers than any previous administration, the continuing use of controversial drone strikes, the promotion of warrantless wiretapping against public opinion, the denial of the importance of the Snowden revelations, and the failure to prosecute Wall Street for any malfeasance beyond large fines -- all of these things led critics to note that previous administrations were far more open, democratic, and liberal than the current one. Some liberals questioned whether they had actually elected a Democrat in the first place. Strangely, even though liberals strongly supported a single-payer health care solution, Obama's legacy instead hinged on the passing of the Affordable Care Act, a health care policy in part designed by a conservative think tank in the early 1990s, a policy which failed to address the very health insurance reforms (such as controlling the costs) reformers had lobbied so hard for in the first place." Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC) It should be taken into account that US politics is much more conservative than Europe. South Korean social democrats and socialists often view Barack Obama as a person similar to Roh Moo-hyun. Roh did not repeal the National Security Act, a legacy of the far-right dictatorship. In addition, Roh Moo-hyun severely suppressed the labor movement. And he showed social conservative views, such as not agreeing with homosexuality. Although Roh Moo-hyun was not particularly progressive during his time in power, he is considered a liberal center-left by South Korean political standards. Likewise, Barack Obama is certainly hard to be seen as a center-right by US political standards.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Especially culturally, Barack Obama has been active in pro-immigration, pro-LGBT and autistic rights issues. It's a center-left and I'm one of Obama's most respected politicians in this respect.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted below, this the administrators' noticeboard, it's not a place for general discussion of a topic, or the details of a content dispute. Please stop debating political science on this noticeboard. Please address Specifico's request for specifics about what you want to accomplish. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think BMK is ignorant of American politics. I just think BMK is making biased descriptions in 'some' pages, not 'all'.--Storm598 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 seems to be entering AP post-1932 TB territory. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my comments at the previous ANI discussion, I think it needs to be broader. The issues extend to East Asian politics. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Pace Toa Nidhiki05's remark above‎, after 40 years of close observation, I'm pretty conversant with American politics, but I know little about the politics of East Asia. Can you describe Storm598's behavior in that subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I think Storm is being a bit AP post-1932 TB, don't you think? SlightSmile 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Broadly the same issues that are evident in the AP2 area - engaging in OR, particularly with respect to categorisation & infobox contents. The addition of Cat:Identity politics in Japan is not necessarily harmful, just bizarre.[132] But there's also this, categorising a WW2 era Japanese politician as "fascist", when the article describes him in rather more moderate terms.[133] And this, adding "far-right" with neither source nor support in the article text.[134] The addition of a handful of cats, including "far-right" to a Thai political party here,[135], while also acknowledging that the sourcing doesn't exist.[136] Not isolated to "far-right", there's also additions and removals of "left-wing activist" here; again without sourcing or supporting text.[137][138][139] And these changes to a British Labour Party politicians are justified entirely by OR or personal viewpoint.[140][141] And these additions of "Anti-Zionism in South Korea", a new category created by Storm598, are just bewildering.[142][143] These additions to a Korean political party are unsourced OR.[144]; no justification is provided for this removal.[145]. This, to Kuomintang, is based on OR.[146] It's actually hard to find an edit in the broader politics topic which isn't pushing a personal POV or original research. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reset

Enough with the sniping and content arguments, please. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, can the discussion be reset?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it is helpful at this point. It really illustrates the issues at hand. No need to stifle reasonable discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It's not helpful, please stop adding to the bonfire. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It is helpful, we can agree to disagree though. PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It stopped being helpful a few thousand bytes ago. I'm not interested in whether you want to have a meta-debate now over "helpful." Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Suit yourself, then please stop disrupting dispute resolution with these off topic tangents. We are trying to get to the bottom of this issue and that will not happen with these silly arguments like this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC) This isn't a dispute resolution board - that's elsewhere. Are you now accusing me, an administrator who's trying to refocus this exceedingly painful wall of text, of disruption because I expect you to stop taking potshots at each other on this administrator's noticeboard? Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Are you now accusing me, an administrator I mean yeah, that is what I said. So quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC) PackMecEng, your contributions to this thread have been completely unhelpful. If you have a point that needs to be made, please reconsider your approach. – bradv🍁 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC) @Bradv: Perhaps you are just misunderstanding like BMK was. Which one is giving you trouble and I can help you out. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I'm considering a partial block from AN for PackMecEng for disrupting AN - this is argument for argument's sake. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Maybe, I mean using the tools to block someone for disagreeing with you does sound like a smart plan. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Confronting disruptive behavior is what administrators do. I've taken no part in the discussion above, I am examining your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Well no. You made a general, and glaringly incorrect observation, I disagreed with your bad observation and then you threatened a block. Do not misrepresent the situation to play the uninvolved card. This is about our discussion here, not the one above my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Since I was considering the same thing when I left my warning above, I've gone ahead and blocked PackMecEng from this noticeboard for a week. Perhaps now the conversation can get back on track. – bradv🍁 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try my hand at a reset. Here are what I think are the salient points:

• Storm598 came here with complaints about me which seem to boil down to his perception that I am using "'modern liberal' biased techniques" in my editing, but -- at least as I see it, although I'm clearly not neutral -- what he means by that is pretty vague, and he hasn't really made a very strong case for it, nor has he said what outcome he wants from filing the report. If I'm wrong, and he has indeed made a compelling case against me, then I should be appropriately sanctioned -- whatever that would be -- but if I'm correct that his evidence is less than convincing, then as the accuser with the onus to prove his charge, his case against me should be dropped.

• On the boomerang side, I see in Storm598's editing a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics, which manifests itself in mischaracterizations which are based on non-American political criteria inapplicable in an American context. On top of this he does not follow proper sourcing requirements, shoving in new information on top of existing citations which do not directly support the new descriptors as they are required to do. (See here) These are not new problems, they are continuations of the situation described in a discussion in March when Storm598 narrowly avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily banning himself from the subject for three months, a ban he has broken twice since then. [147], [148], [149]

I think that is the core of this thread. Unfortunately, most of the bazillion other bytes of text are not directly relevant to these two points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I talked about AP2 topic ban for 3 months is because you bullied me. You've interrupted a number of legitimate edits that I have nothing to do with American politics. In addition, I said so emotionally because I was unable to participate in the debate because my mental health was seriously deteriorated at the time. But as I said above, the descriptions you made in some of the American political papers, including the Blue Dog, have not always been universal. When there was an editorial dispute on the page related to American politics, I always wanted to open a talk and solve it through dialogue. I have never made a major misstatement in American political documents. Do you think I don't know how the concept of 'liberal' is used in America? I just think that simply writing down RSS as 'moderate conservatism' can give political bias to those who read it. If RSS is not liberal, then BDC cannot be considered conservative. I certainly think that some of Beyond My Ken's political pages skills are biased.--Storm598 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that only the same words will be repeated anyway, so I will stop the argument here any more. --Storm598 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not very useful to you to make charges such as that I "bullied" you into doing something, when anyone can read the March discussion [150] and see that you were clearly heading toward a AP2 TB or worse, which is not something I can do by myself, but requires the Wikipedia community to enact. I never asked you to voluntarily do anything, I came to the community asking for action about your behavior, and the community was responding to that request. You may see that as "bullying", but it's how problem editors are dealt with here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Because of a failure in WP:CIR, WP:TE and most especially WP:STICK, Storm598 (talk · contribs) is subject to an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban from all post-1992 politics in the United States. This thread should provide all the evidence needed for such a motion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

re: expanded politics topic ban. I proposed what seemed the minimum effective measure to address the current disruption. I think that this already represents a last chance for Storm598 and any further disruption in other politics topics should result in an indefinite complete block. I am not opposed to Ryk72's expanded proposal, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

for accuracy's sake, I also note that Storm has claimed to retire from enwiki. Given the lack of follow-through on previous claimed self-imposed restrictions, I think there is a need for a definitive sanction in case they unretire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support "modern liberal biased techniques" pretty much says it all. Storm598 should find something else to edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support community-imposed topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, notwithstanding any additional sanctions which may be considered in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that the starting point for DS AP2 was changed from 1932 to 1992 (here) so it would seem to make sense that a community-imposed AP2 TB would use the same starting point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Reyk72's expanded TB as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as part of a community imposed topic ban from Politics (broadly construed). - Ryk72 ^talk 07:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum, and I also support Ryk72's broader ban, because I fear that the problematic editing will be transferred to the politics of other nations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the broader ban, per Ryk72's analysis. Quite a few simply odd edits, in addition to the ones that shouldn't be made without appropriate sourcing. I don't see evidence above that this need for sourcing is well-understood. CMD (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Abstain I'm not in favor of culling one or two members from the herd to sanction when there are a multitude of "bad actors" in a particular topic area. I'm not seeing any WP:NPA violations, or even WP:ASPERSIONS in Storm's posts. What I am seeing is a disagreement on the WP:POV end of political editing. I also don't assume that Storm598 is being deceptive in his intent to leave the topic area. So no, I can't support this as written at this time. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ched The fact that Storm598 came out of his "retirement" three days after writing "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again" in order to post the comments below is why it's appropriate to think that he has no intention of leaving the AP2 topic area. He did exactly the same thing the last time he was challenged, said he was giving up and going away, then came back to voluntarily take on a 3-month AP2 topic ban, only to break it well before the 3 months were over. I really do not believe anything that Storm598 says he is going to do, and would prefer to go by his actions in the past, and now again right here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• And in those comments below, Storm598 admits to sockpuppetry in order to avoid sanctions both in April and now, in June, with User:파란만장. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support American politics topic ban, Oppose broader ban. There's an awful lot of ABF going on assuming that editing issues with APOL will transfer to other countries; we should give Storm enough WP:ROPE to still edit politics of other countries.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to note that, according to Reyk72, it's not a question of whether Storm598's disruptive editing will spread outside of the AP2 area, but that his editing there is as bad as it is in American politics; so there's no ABF involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support American politics topic ban, at minimum, on both competence and disruptive editing grounds. And no, despite what Ched says, there are not "multiple bad actors" here, there'S really only one. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Abstain - per Ched. Blue Dogs might be "the right wing of the Democrats" but that doesn't mean it should be listed as "right wing" in the infobox, as in "the right wing of American politics." Blue Dogs are commonly described as fiscally conservative Democrats (eg see WaPo) and thus the right wing of that party, but not as "right wing" in the same way as, say, Donald Trump or Breitbart or something like that. The OP's report is valid: there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot. I think the OP's complaint is valid and the boomerang is not. If there is some long term problem with Storm, let's see some diffs and a real report. Levivich 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Updated !vote. Levivich 01:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Please keep comments on-point and do not attempt to litigate content issues. If you want a diff, look at the opening of Storm's statement here which is a clear personal attack. The rest of this thread should amply serve as needed evidence without bureaucratic contortions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot is about conduct, not content, and please don't imply I !voted without reading this thread. No, it does not serve as ample evidence supporting a sanction, not in my view. Levivich 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBan; weakly oppose Topic Ban from WP:ARBAP2. I don't think there's much here for a broader topic ban extending to all of politics (certainly this thread doesn't really say anything about Roman Politics or the like, so a proposal along those lines is too broad). I also don't think that the editor is incapable of editing articles relating to American politics, though I certainly have serious concerns. If we choose to move forward with a topic ban, I believe that it should be limited in time (rather than indefinite), since this appears to be a case of an editor becoming extremely hot-headed while on WP:ANI rather than substantive issues with the edits themselves. As a result, I think the most narrowly tailored approach would be to impose a 1-way interaction band that would prohibit Storm598 from interacting with Beyond My Ken for a period of six months. If the editor violates the interaction ban with malice, or if their behavior continues after this thread is closed, I would move to support a topic ban. The user has had issues with this area in the past, incurring a one-day ban for edit warring on this topic, so my current opposition to a topic ban is only a weak one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• An IBan is not under consideration since it's not responsive to the situation presented -- but, in any case, whom do you propose to ban and in what direction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: My intent was to put forward an alternative (banning Storm598 from interacting with you; the ban should be placed on Storm 598). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the explanation. I do not see that Storm598's interactions with me are the base problem here, instead the concern is about their editing to articles, specifically in the American politics subject area, but also in other areas as well. An interaction ban will not solve this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just wanted to point out that nothing Storm598 writes about his intentions concerning editing Wikipedia can be trusted. He "retired" three days ago, and now he posts it again, with the edit summary "Now it's really retired," [151] as if we're supposed to believe him now that he really, really means it. So when he writes "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again. I won't even create another account", [152] we can be pretty sure that he'll be back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• And again he changes his intentions [153]. Also, WP:NOTTHERAPY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• And now he's removed "retired". [154] Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Originally, I didn't want to answer, but I'll answer this before I leave. The reason why I deleted "retired" is because it can cause regulatory problems. Because as you said last time, I remembered that I couldn't "retire". But I'm not editing Wikipedia any more this year. I don't want you to misunderstand me as a destructive editing. If you don't believe it, watch from now on.--Storm598 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I never told you that you couldn't retire. Please provide the diff of where you think I said that. In point of fact, you have "retired" -- either with a template or otherwise, and twice now in the midst of sanctions being considered against you -- a number of times, and each time you return to editing within a short period of time. That's called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support american politics topic ban. I say we wait to see how that goes before considering a one way IBan. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason why I am convinced that this is discrimination against new users.

One of the things I say when I doubt myself is that I'm a new user. To be honest, I have a reason to be sure that I am discriminated against because I am a new user.

I used to be active on another account for about 3 years.(User:삭은사과) Then, in September last year, I completely quit editing Wikipedia in October because I was on the verge of spreading my real name and personal information on other sites. And I created this account last December.

When I first started editing on Wikipedia in 2017, there were a few disputes, but since then, people haven't really taken issue with my editing. (Of course, at this time, I was more likely to source, and I didn't edit as many US political documents as I do now.)

Would my editing have been this suspicious if I had been on the 삭은사과 account since October last year? I was a 'verified user' back then. I have also received Barnstar from Korean Wikipedia.# Obviously, the atmosphere of 2017 or 2018 was not so exclusive to 'new users'. Am I wrong?

I would also like to refute some of the claims that I am doing OR.

• Adding corporatism to Kuomintang's pages' infobox is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not enough evidence to suggest that current Kuomintang pursues corporatism.
• Hideki Tojo and Fumimaro Konoe are representative leaders of the fascist-centered "Axis powers," and there is an academic controversy over whether totalitarianism in the Japanese Empire was fascism in the late 1930s and 1940s. I'm not the only one who put the fascist category in that page.
• Some say that I made an OR in American political pages, but in that sense, there is a reason why I don't hold Beyond My Ken responsible for making an OR in Blue Dog and other U.S. political pages. That's because Beyond My Ken is a person who has been using Wikipedia for a long time, not a "new user". Also, I often used Talk on many pages.

Of course, the current situation was so unfair that I created a new account and edited Wikipedia. This is my fault because it is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. # I'm sorry.

But I honestly don't think there's been a big OR in American political documents. If I'm going to label BDC's ideology as conservatism because many of the disputes in Wikipedia are called Republican Governance Group as "liberal Republicans" and Blue Dog Coalition as "conservative Democrats", then I'm just at odds with Beyond My Ken over the view that RGG's ideology should be labeled liberal. To be honest, I think I'm being treated as an unfair bias because I'm a new user. This is not an OP, just a difference of opinion.

I'm really going to say something as I really leave now. A large number of English Wikipedia users has certainly become quite exclusive compared to the past. I doubt the new user Be bold first. At this rate, I'm sure there will be fewer users editing English Wikipedia in the future.I'm sick and tired of this form.--Storm598 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way, but you really have to approach English Wikipedia, at least, as a giant collaborative project, and that means with humility. People will disagree, and very few subjects are truly susceptible to logical proofs. If I could offer some advice, take a break and come back with the mindset to persuade. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Storm598: Your previous account, User:삭은사과 was active for 4 years and 4 months, with 3,389 edits. Your current account has been active for 5 months with 1,347 edits. Throw in the nine edits from your sockpuppet account User:파란만장, and in total you have edited for 4 years and 9 months with 4,745 edits. You are in no way, shape or form a "new editor".
  And, yes, to answer your question, if you had continued to edit with your first account, and you had made exactly the same edits you made as Storm598, my response would have been the same. Bad editing is bad editing, period. I would have said to 삭은사과 the same thing I wrote to you in my very first comment on your talk page: "I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing," something that you still haven't done. [155] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said, so I'm going to say this for the last time. That's right. I'm not a new user. But the reason you treat me like this is because you recognized me as a new user. Today, I revealed for the first time that I used to work under the account of '삭은사과'. Now that it's already happened, you're just trying to keep going. But if I hadn't created an account called Storm598 at all, and had used the account I'd been using since the beginning, you'd be much less suspicious of my editing. Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? --Storm598 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't need to reveal that I had previously been on an account called 삭은사과 and I just said it, even though it was against me. The Wikipedia atmosphere has certainly become exclusive from a few years ago. I wanted to make this clear to you.--Storm598 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In short, direct words: you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is a huge leap from "Wah! I didn't get my way! Call Whine One One! I need a Wahmbulance!!" to "I am being discriminated against". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I admit that I was ignorant of American politics.

I couldn't even understand why Elizabeth Warren was called "liberal" instead of "social democratic".(Of course I've never edited Elizabeth Warren page at all.) In South Korea, Elizabeth Warren is perceived as a social democratic or "radical left-wing". In fact, in South Korea, center-left media also report Elizabeth Warren as a "radical left-wing".# Even major American liberal media have likened Elizabeth Warren to social democracy.# South Korea prefers state intervention more economically than the United States, but most political forces, including the center-left social democratic Justice Party, are negative about the dismantlement of Chaebol or financial reform.(Of course, South Korea's Justice Party is advocating chaebol reform.) Perhaps if a politician like Elizabeth Warren appeared in South Korea, he would be considered more leftist than the usual social democracy in South Korea.

I realized that the investigation "liberal" used in the United States was very American exceptional. In American politics, "liberal" is a very vague rhetoric, which is called "liberal" in the international sense of Barack Obama, but even progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call it "liberal." Outside the United States, however, there are views that people close to social liberalism, such as Tony Blair, are "social democracat," which in many ways confuses me. (Tony Blair is not as radical as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but rather compared to Bill Clinton. The third way.)

I have now somewhat understood why it is awkward to describe RGG as 'liberal' in the context of American politics. I still lack knowledge of American politics, and I need to study more. I now agree that I need a ban for at least a period of time on the American political page.

However, if so, I still have some questions about editing BMK. I still don't understand how RSS is described as a moderate conservative organisation. Similarly, the Blue Dog is not a right-wing in the general sense of American politics. (example: Rockefeller Republicans are left-wing in the Republican Party, but they are not left-wing by national political standards.) Some of the other users also took issue with editing BMK. Especially in the case of Blue Dog, there was a user who took issue with editing BMK even if it wasn't me. Did I misunderstand this part, too? I hope that the Administrators will also consider this when considering sanctions against me. As mentioned above, there was also a clear problem with BMK editing some pages.(Of course, I 'agree' with BMK's recent proposal to label the Republican Governance Group as "Political moderate".#)--Storm598 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not to explain that I see Elizabeth Warren as a social democrat, but that some 'liberals' in the United States, such as Elizabeth Warren, are perceived differently from the general meaning of 'liberal' in other countries. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is a social democrat. In many countries, 'liberal' is often referred to as a centrist, unlike 'liberal' in the American context.--Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an expert on US politics either, but I'm pretty sure that politics is not on the high school syllabus over there. That means that many don't even have the background knowledge to engage in such discussions. It also means that some will turn to Wikipedia for explanation. We need to be aware that where the political "centre" lies will differ greatly from country to country and should therefore be avoided where possible and carefully defined where not. We also need to use terms like "liberal" and "socialist" with great precision, even if it means that American readers are surprised that liberals are right of centre in many countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Even ideologies that are not political positions may have different meanings. Liberals in South Korea will not be considered liberals in the United States. They are more of a center-right or right-wing in American political standards socially and culturally. For example, there are quite a few liberals in South Korea who oppose homosexuality(Example: #, #, #), not same-sex marriage, which in the United States would be considered simple conservatism, not moderate conservatism. South Koreans think American liberalism is different from their own. American liberalism is an American exceptional concept, which is not perfectly consistent with 'centrist liberal' in the international concept. In particular, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are "liberal" in the American political context, but there are social democratic elements beyond social liberalism on international standards. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren has some aspects that go against social democratic principles, but there is a point where Warren is hardly considered a "centrist liberal" in international terms. In particular, Warren's views on exchange rates or free trade are hardly considered "liberal" in the general international sense. The center-left media in South Korea mentioned above also reported that Warren has put forward radical left-wing policies, including a pledge to manipulate the exchange rate. This view is never called "liberal" or "social liberal" in South Korea. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea last time was only to inform that American politicians and political forces are actually classified differently in South Korea, not to base them on the major wiki of South Korea. In South Korea, Warren is actually seen as a social democrat. Warren is a CPC-linked figure in the first place, so it may not be just wrong to see Warren as a social democrat. Of course I don't think of Warren as a social democrat. What is certain is that "liberal" is used internationally in much the same sense as "centrist", so South Korea's social liberal is much more conservative than the US's "liberal". This is because the concepts themselves are completely different. As mentioned above, Warren is considered quite radical left-wing or similar to himself among the center-left (mainly social democrats) in South Korea. The American 'liberal' is certainly not a centrist 'liberal' in international sense.--Storm598 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said I needed to study more about American politics. Internationally, some Rockefeller Republicans or moderate Republicans can be considered conservative liberals. (In particular, liberal conservatism, a sub-division of conservative liberalism, is used in many countries in a similar sense to moderate conservatism.) However, it is inappropriate to call the center-right conservative because the mainstream right is called conservative and the mainstream left is called "liberal" in American political standards. However, I did not see the RGG as a general conservative organization and did not see the BDC as a general right-wing, so I was only opposed to BMK's new editing.(This I think BMK has frankly done OR. I think administrators should consider this, even if they ban editing my American political page for a period of time.) However, applying the concept of 'liberal' outside the American to pages related to United States politics can cause a lot of confusion, and I think there is plenty of room for OR. I admit that I did OR on this part. My editing was mistaken in many ways because American liberalism means 'social liberalism' and 'progressivism', not general 'centrist' liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but politics is definitely required as part of the high school curriculum in most states - at least, we had a year of American history in 11th grade followed by a semester on American Government. Whether it is comprehensive enough is another question. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, some of you may think that what I'm saying here is OR. However, I explained how 'liberal' in the United States is perceived outside the United States. Since the concept of "liberal" in the United States is an American exceptionalist concept, it is my OR that attempts to apply and edit the concept of "liberal" in the international sense in American political documents. I think it's my fault that I created something like "Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States)". I'm going to log out of Wikipedia after this time, and I'm going to find out how American political are described. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to quit editing English Wikipedia for a long time, but I broke my promise last time, so you might not believe me easily, and I wrote this long article to explain my editing. Once again, I'm sorry. My mental health has deteriorated so I'm going to block access to English Wikipedia on my phone and computer (I didn't block access to English Wikipedia last February).--Storm598 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I retract the word that I will block access to English Wikipedia. However, I will not edit the English Wikipedia for a while and just read it.--Storm598 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

• I think that there more than sufficient evidence at this point -- much of it in their own words -- for an uninvolved admin to make a determination as to whether a sanction should be imposed on Storm598, either a community AP2 topic ban or a community ban against editing anything related to politics. Or no sanction at all, of course. I would recommend that the closer read closely everything from the #Reset section on down, and also look at the March discussion [156].

Obviously, if there's sufficient evidence and community support for a sanction against myself, that should be considered as well, but it's certainly time to wrap this up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• If possible, I would like to have a ban with a fixed deadline rather than a permanent one. Please consider that I didn't cause such a big problem when I was working on another account(삭은사과) until last year, but rather made productive edits. (Examples: #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, enc.) I acknowledge that the edits I have made over the months on this account(Storm598) may not be productive or OR. It's because my mental health has deteriorated this year. I'll log out until my mental health is restored. I'll try not to cause this problem when I get back to Wikipedia next year.(When this is over, I won't edit Wikipedia pages this year, but I'll just read them.) --Storm598 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If possible, please give me a topic ban with a fixed deadline. Or please block Wikipedia for about a 1 year(365 days) until I recover my mental health without topic ban. Please don't do a permanent topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Recently, my mental health has deteriorated a lot, and now I really feel that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia this year. But I want you to give me a 'chance'. I personally suffered a very terrible incident this year and had a problematic editing, but my mental health will be fully restored by the second half of next year. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Are you saying that you agree to a 1-year ban from editing English Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's right, but on the condition that administrators don't do AP2 ban on me. I'll continue reading Wikipedia, but I'd rather not edit it for my current mental health. The irrational behavior that I've been doing in English Wikipedia recently is related to my mental health problems.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm very shy to see what I said a few days ago today. I think I had a lot of positive prejudice against American politics and society because South Korean society is quite conservative in minority human rights issues and I suffered serious discrimination in South Korea as an LGBT. In this situation, I think I've lost my reason this year because I've been through something very bad. (however, when editing South Korean political pages, it did not reflect my OR view.) For many complex reasons, I have not been rational in many ways this year. I think I need to take a long break.--Storm598 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to stop editing or not? If your mental health is a concern, you should stop and disengage - period. Wikipedia cannot operate in that capacity on your behalf. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the edits in the accounts that I stopped using before I created this account, you will honestly feel that the edits in the current account are very poor in quality compared to those in the previous account. From the end of last year to the beginning of this year, I had a terrible experience that I could not say publicly. Including cyber stalking damage on SNS. My mental health condition is very poor now. It's worse than last year.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this attempt by Storm598 to craft his own sanction under his conditions. If he had agreed to a straight one-year site ban, I thought that could be an OK compromise, but once he started making demands, I think that shows that his offer was not at all serious. His attempt to negotiate a sanction is what he did back in March -- and here we are again. My feeling is that if sanctions are placed on him, they should be indefinite, and he can request they be lifted after a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Beyond My Ken. I would also be OK with letting them request an unban after six months instead of a year but the chances of it succeeding are roughly 0% so IMO there is no real difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Summary - The proposal for sanctions against Storm598 has been open since May 31, or 12 days. Without dealing with strength of argument, just looking at the numbers, I see:

• 7 supports for an AP2 ban, 1 weak oppose
• 4 support for an all politics ban, 1 oppose
• 2 abstentions
• 1 one-way interaction ban for Storm529

• Can an uninvolved admin please assess and close?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for a batch G5 deletion of 230 redirects and talk pages

Resolved

Could someone please nuke these pages? The SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood/Archive#07 June 2021. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, all nuked. Maxim_(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IP Masking Update

Duplicate post from WP:VPWMF

The IP Masking team have provided an update on IP Masking that can be seen here.

Given this will affect many editor's workflows, and will inherently affect various AN-related functions, as well as a fairly significant WP:PERM change, please take the time to look and comment Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu

User:tgeorgescu forcefully editing 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola article, if anyone tries to edit it he leaves this on your talk page: 'This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Julius Evola, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)'

Again, I have said I am Jewish, so why is he linking me :WP:NONAZIS. This is trolling from an admin with an agenda.

Just look at his page: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.

Nobody wants the edit, multiple people have stated this on the talk page. It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome. I am only being called a vandal as a way to silence editors without power. I do not care for 'community points'. I don't even have an account. Everyone knows that Wikipedia mods are known for being unfair so I suspect even reporting this will get me silenced here and trolled as a 'vandal' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The talk page history clearly demonstrates that this request has no merit. Most of the above statements are incorrect (or, to say more explicitly, represent blatant lie).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Already dealt with here. This matter is finished, except for the outstanding question put to 95.146.215.61 as to whether they are Editorofthegods. Not notifying tgeorgescu because that's OP's responsibility and because there's little point, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yamla, I found reason enough, in the various contributions and article histories, to run a quick check, which revealed one unused sock account and a serious amount of logged-in editing, which should come as no surprise to those who are in the know. The geolocation doesn't match up, but yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say it's the same person, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome." Yes, indeed, such cabal-based thinking is indeed very, very, tiresome. I would be in favor of a short time out for the IP, based on WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, and WP:STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There Is No Cable! Levivich 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure for archived TBAN proposal

This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [157] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [158]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [159], and [160], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Partial Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. However, I would primarily support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment and idea above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action at this time until you all get some more input from editors and admins outside the Wikiproject.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread. Other than the people who provided their own evidence, it appears everyone else was just pile on support that got canvassed by that initial discussion of creating a thread. While Enterprisey determined that none of the posts really crossed any lines, it is still stealth canvassing by even mentioning a discussion or its creation off-wiki in a project chat. This discussion should have been left in its grave instead of being dug back up. Noah^Talk 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It honestly doesn't matter what Fleur did if the people making the thread canvassed it. The whole thing was tainted from the start and everyone piling on from WPTC should be disregarded. I think the lack of outside involvement and the bot archival w/o closure shows that most people and admins believe this is a non-issue. Noah^Talk 01:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since Canvassing was mentioned here, thought I would link this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Canvassing within the WikiProject 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action currently Due to allegations of stealth canvassing and little outside input.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action for now Per Jackattack1597, and I want to point out that the consensus in-WikiProject is for support while outside input is mostly split on this, leaning towards oppose. MarioJump83! 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic image additions, probable socking

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

For context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive331#Five_thousand_images_added_by_RogerNiceEyes Back in March, RogerNiceEyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added thousands of images to articles in rapid succession, and was indefinitely blocked for not communicating.

The account Allknowingroger was first registered in 2018 and made a few dozen edits prior to the 7th of June 2021, when they started engaging in the same behaviour as RogerNiceEyes, adding images to articles in rapid succession. The fact that both account have "Roger" in their name and have the exact same modus operandi makes me suspect that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allknowingroger/ArchiveJackattack1597 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant, it confirms that it's block evasion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice find. I think we found a sock, or at least a meatpuppet. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Addendum -- since I have rollback, does anyone have a problem with me undoing these? No need to keep an indefinitely blocked user's changes around. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it's permissible to use rollback to undo an indef-blocked editors contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Only if they're blocked for socking; just a normal indef is misuse off the tool. ——Serial 09:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: I do object to these being undone by rollback, which doesn't leave an edit summary. Both RogerNiceEyes and Allknowingroger made some bad image additions to articles but also some good ones. When the addition was a good one, I want to see why it was undone – I almost reverted several of your changes before I saw this thread. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: -- Alright then -- sorry for the disruption. I won't use rollback and make sure to add a summary explaining my changes. It is just annoying since Roger is not wanted here. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: sure, I agree re the socking, and re undoing their edits, but if there's an edit summary like "reverted sockpuppet edit", other editors know what is going on. I think rollback is best reserved for obvious vandalism , easily seen from a dif, which isn't the case here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: -- sounds good, I'll switch to using rollback without marking it as vandalism (where it prompts you for an edit summary). I'll spend time doing that tonight, if someone doesn't get to it first. Thanks! -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a slightly bigger problem that needs attention here - since the 20th of may (as in 3 weeks ago) they've made ~ 185,000 edits to wikidata, most of which seem to have been adding images to wikidata entries. I Given the sheer volume of edits there's no way that these could have been performed with any kind of oversight. I'm not sure if we have any infoboxes or the like that populate images from wikidata, but if we do this could represent a massive problem. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There's actually allready a complaint on their wikidata talk page that they added an image of a completely different painting to a wikidata entry, so yes, it looks like their wikidata edits are just as problematic as their edits here. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

But at least they responded on their talkpage. They are mute over here. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEAT puppetry via Twitter

Hi there, someone on Twitter has decreed that a cartoon character "Rolf" is from Romania, and is encouraging social media users to "vandalize" Wikis netwide to put the information in articles (including ours.) Tweet here. I don't know if this dude is a creator or just some rando. Elizium23 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Any Italian, Polish or Turkish speaking editors able to flag this up at those Wikis admin boards? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot not updating the unblock request table.

For the past 24 hrs User:DeltaQuadBot hasn't been updating User:AmandaNP/unblock table. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: Per User:DeltaQuadBot, the bot's operator can be reached at User talk:AmandaNP. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but AmandaNP hasn't been active for a few days and its not the first time this has happened (although the last time was several months back). Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to at least try. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Just posted on her talk page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a toolforge grid engine error. Nothing I can really do about it unless someone pings me, but I expect it to run 24/7. It will be back momentarily. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible paid editing

Seems like User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is using Wikipedia for his/her paid editing/promotional activities. As can be seen in this AfD discussion, as User:Pathawi indicated, he or she just insists on keeping non-notable articles, looking for other Azerbaijani editors' support in those type of discussions. Same activities were observed in the Turkish Wikipedia as well, some articles were deleted and the user blocked indefinetely. Uploading promotional images on Commons to use in his/her promotional non-notable articles, still trying to promote his non-notable articles, keep sending messages to various user and preventing them to focus on their contributions (1, 2, 3, even canvassing in here, here and here) are all disruptive activities. I also gotta mention that in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they keep the article if it exists in another language edition, therefore they try to create them in the English, the Russian and/or the Turkish Wikipedia.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, you have chosen me as a target, you are deleting my articles and pictures. My activity on Wikipedia is to contribute to the development of articles by celebrities across the country in other languages.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've never posted on the Administrators' noticeboard before, so please excuse me if I've got protocol wrong. From the conversation that I was tagged for, it's clear that Elşad İman has a conflict of interest in the case of Dr Günay Əliyeva, as he knows her personally & has been her patient. This is not, however, necessarily a case of paid editing. I agree that there is a problem of Elşad's drowning these pages on Azerbaijani figures with sources that contain no significant content to back up biographical details that are not present in the sources, & to create the impression of notability. These sources are overwhelmingly in Azerbaijani, which shouldn't be a problem—there's no requirement that sources be in English—but this generally restricts the number of people who can validate the sources. I have called the conflict of interest to Elşad's attention, but it has not changed his behaviour, as he is still working directly on the article. COIs have been a problem elsewhere as well: Elşad has a relationship with the Azerbaijani pomegranate-exporters' association—https://pomegranate.az/en/events/post/39—& has been involved with contentious editing in the related article Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan; another COI was addressed in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damed Imanov—the subject of the article was Elşad's employer (tho does not appear to have been so at the time of editing). Some of Elşad's Azerbaijan-related editing has been real additions to articles on notable subjects. However, the editor does not seem to be paying attention to issues of conflicts of interest, source significance, or coverage notability, is extraordinarily unreliable in citation practices, & has engaged deletion discussions in the difficult ways described by Nanahuatl. Pathawi (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism at article György Bognár

Hi! Many anon has vandalised the article hu:Bognár György (labdarúgó) on huwiki, so we have protected it. Now they continue their activity here, they are vandalizing the György Bognár article. Could you protect it? – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Balint36, semi-protected for 3 days by The Earwig. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible paid editing

Seems like User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is using Wikipedia for his/her paid editing/promotional activities. As can be seen in this AfD discussion, as User:Pathawi indicated, he or she just insists on keeping non-notable articles, looking for other Azerbaijani editors' support in those type of discussions. Same activities were observed in the Turkish Wikipedia as well, some articles were deleted and the user blocked indefinetely. Uploading promotional images on Commons to use in his/her promotional non-notable articles, still trying to promote his non-notable articles, keep sending messages to various user and preventing them to focus on their contributions (1, 2, 3, even canvassing in here, here and here) are all disruptive activities. I also gotta mention that in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they keep the article if it exists in another language edition, therefore they try to create them in the English, the Russian and/or the Turkish Wikipedia.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, you have chosen me as a target, you are deleting my articles and pictures. My activity on Wikipedia is to contribute to the development of articles by celebrities across the country in other languages.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've never posted on the Administrators' noticeboard before, so please excuse me if I've got protocol wrong. From the conversation that I was tagged for, it's clear that Elşad İman has a conflict of interest in the case of Dr Günay Əliyeva, as he knows her personally & has been her patient. This is not, however, necessarily a case of paid editing. I agree that there is a problem of Elşad's drowning these pages on Azerbaijani figures with sources that contain no significant content to back up biographical details that are not present in the sources, & to create the impression of notability. These sources are overwhelmingly in Azerbaijani, which shouldn't be a problem—there's no requirement that sources be in English—but this generally restricts the number of people who can validate the sources. I have called the conflict of interest to Elşad's attention, but it has not changed his behaviour, as he is still working directly on the article. COIs have been a problem elsewhere as well: Elşad has a relationship with the Azerbaijani pomegranate-exporters' association—https://pomegranate.az/en/events/post/39—& has been involved with contentious editing in the related article Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan; another COI was addressed in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damed Imanov—the subject of the article was Elşad's employer (tho does not appear to have been so at the time of editing). Some of Elşad's Azerbaijan-related editing has been real additions to articles on notable subjects. However, the editor does not seem to be paying attention to issues of conflicts of interest, source significance, or coverage notability, is extraordinarily unreliable in citation practices, & has engaged deletion discussions in the difficult ways described by Nanahuatl. Pathawi (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism at article György Bognár

Hi! Many anon has vandalised the article hu:Bognár György (labdarúgó) on huwiki, so we have protected it. Now they continue their activity here, they are vandalizing the György Bognár article. Could you protect it? – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Balint36, semi-protected for 3 days by The Earwig. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

IP 74.88.193.39

Persistent disruption on articles about roads in New Jersey, violating multiple MOS guidelines.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=County_Route_541_(New_Jersey)&diff=1028251469&oldid=1028134721
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Jersey_Route_31&diff=1028084096&oldid=1022670397

Needforspeed888 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Needforspeed888: This is an "incident" so next time please report at WP:ANI. Another admin has blocked 74.88.193.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks. Let them or me know if it resumes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tow7864#Sock --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing possible about it. Blocked for block evasion. The fact they continued to post promotional edits as well is enough for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC about title started while move review is in progress

A move review regarding 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is in progress, but now someone started an RfC about the title. I don't know if there a specific rules pertaining to such a parallel RfC, but I think it goes against the idea of our RM/MR processes. What do you think? Should the RfC be stopped? By an admin? — Chrisahn (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The move review is choosing between two options. It's natural for people to discuss potential other future options on talk; It's a fluid topic and we can expect general discussions of titles to persist for some time. Not a problem to be talking and brainstorming about it. Feoffer (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed by Amakuru. I think this section can be closed / archived / deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This should be undone and perhaps labeled a "straw poll" or just a "discussion". It's not appropriate to brainstorm and discuss the merits of titles at the MoveReview. Feoffer (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, but it's also not a good idea to hold straw polls outside of RM requests, because people have a habit of regarding them as binding. From experience, I'm also sceptical whether ranking systems really work in resolving title disputes. Everyone has their own order of preference and you mostly just get more noise than information from that. The best route (depending on the outcome of the MRV, which should be concluded first) would be to have a proper targeted RM with proper evidence presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The process of choosing a title for that article has been an onerous mess. Trying every combination of RM until one seems to gain consensus is not feasible -- it's just tiring. Some kind of straw poll or other informal means of deciding the article title is hence a good idea to narrow down the choices and help build consensus before a formal RM. I think that RfC was in process, although so many choices would've made it probably fail. Really it can be said that only ~5 options are viable, and a straw poll asking people to choose their top 2/3 would narrow things down I think and help focus energy towards one or two RMs. Adding options like "rampage", "raid", "takeover", "occupation", "breach" is just unhelpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Unban request of Jshpinar

Resolved

Jshpinar (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked in 2019 by EvergreenFir for Disruptive editing - WP:GENREWARRIOR and socking, and subsequently de facto community banned for repeated block evasion. A checkuser, Yamla, confirmed no recent evidence of further ban evasion in discussion with this editor and they have requested to lift the ban. While I'm copying their request here for community discussion, I am not offering an opinion as to whether it should or should not be granted. Request follows: Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Today is May 25, the day @Rosguill: said he will be willing to consider giving me a standard offer. Since my last request was denied, I avoided making any edits on Wikipedia. I admit that in the final days before Coronavirus, I have made dozens of accounts in the past to edit pages for my own will, but I did it out of sheer boredom and was very wrong in doing so. I have now learned that I need to either properly source any material I wish to add, or discuss any uncertainty on my targeted article's talk page before editing. I would be willing to stay away from modifying genres and REM pages at first to prove I could be an efficient user. I also wouldn't mind if someone proctors me at the start or gives me a step-by-step approach to be fully allowed back on Wikipedia, or whatever it would take for the moderators to gain trust in me. Once more, I am very sorry for causing so much disruption last year and promise to never act like that again. I kindly wish to be unblocked this time so I can move on to making good productive changes to Wikipedia.

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jshpinar/Archive, I think it would be a mistake to unblock them without a topic ban. I'm not immediately sure how to draft that. Perhaps, a topic ban around music, broadly construed; this would cover genres, obviously, but would also require they build up a history of constructive edits in another subject area entirely. And a limit to only a single account, and no logged-out edits. That said, I'm not currently supporting an unblock here because this unblock request isn't convincing to me. This appears to have been a case of deliberate disruption rather than confusion on our policies, and they created a significant number of accounts. Nothing here really indicates to me they'd be beneficial to the project, but I withhold my vote hoping for further clarification from the user. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds like a good start given that they understand what they did wrong and are OK with whatever measures (including a t-ban from all music related articles broadly construed) would have to be taken to build up trust again. I don't understand why we can't give this person some WP:ROPE (in a loose sense) here. They've waited a year without socking and they haven't screwed up a second chance before. This person is hardly even community banned and doesn't have a very long history of disruption (although their disruption was pretty significant at the time they did it). I'd say unban and see what happens. People can change over a year. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 12:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I would support an unblock to give WP:ROPE, preferably with a topic ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• I propose unblocking with a six-month ban from music articles, broadly construed. The user has already agreed to a total ban from music "at first". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In the absence of opposition, I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)