Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	10	30	40
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	6	6
RfD	0	0	4	23	27
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

• 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 157 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 28 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 17 requested closures
• 151 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 27 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 7744 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-05-26 14:11 indefinite move Move warring Ivanvector Meritt North 2024-05-26 14:00 2024-06-02 14:00 edit,move persistent removal of AFD template while AFD discussion is open Bearcat User talk:46.35.177.94 2024-05-26 13:51 2026-03-29 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:87.209.46.135 2024-05-25 18:46 2024-06-24 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Kourage Beatz 2024-05-25 17:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names Liz Kaimla 2024-05-25 16:04 2024-06-25 16:04 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Stew Peters 2024-05-25 07:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:COVIDCT, WP:ARBPS, WP:AP2, WP:PIA, WP:ARBEE, et cetera, etc. El C Burnout Revenge 2024-05-25 04:52 2024-05-28 04:52 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Evil Morty 2024-05-25 02:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine 2024-05-24 22:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP Daniel Case Combat Vehicle 90 2024-05-24 22:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Dada AsTra 2024-05-24 21:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Ralston College 2024-05-24 21:42 2025-05-24 21:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing RegentsPark FC Barcelona 2024-05-24 21:23 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:Favonian/Archive 58 2024-05-24 18:14 indefinite edit,move Favonian User talk:Favonian/Archive 57 2024-05-24 18:13 indefinite edit,move Favonian President of Ukraine 2024-05-24 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Lectonar User:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite create user request UtherSRG User talk:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel 2024-05-23 22:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Safia Khairi 2024-05-23 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Conservatism in Israel 2024-05-23 20:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Xxx 2024-05-23 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist

Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure

An RfC[1] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [2] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [3], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [4], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [5] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [6] [7] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [8]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [9] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[10]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [11] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your altering of the header[12] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[13], Guardian[14], NY Mag[15], Vox[16], and Intercept[17]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[18] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[19]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[20]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn Seems like a bad compromise situation to me, perceiving voting for something as also not voting against the other options is a small nuance that seems to have been missed here. MrClog has explained it fairly well, leading me to think that this deserves a reclose from another uninvolved editor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for topic ban

This notification is to report behaviour by Snooganssnoogans (S) on the Brexit article and request a topic ban.

A few days ago I had an edit to that article reverted several times by S. I took it to the relevant talk page and the discussion about it is here. I added my edit was back in, there being a clear majority in my favour. 4:1, no-one was on S's side. I made the point that S had lied in his or her edit summary of one of the reversions. [here]. This falsehood continued in the discussion. When S said "There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject." s/he was referring to this But editors didn't decide one way or another - there was an even split, followed by administrator judication.

Brexit is a highly contentious subject, which makes it one over which editors must pay special attention to fairness and their allowing information to be presented which they disagree with. Unfortunately, with the edit under discussion there, S appeared to disagree with that concept, writing that "a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included..." But the working paper was not just a snappy judgement by whoever, it was a survey undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore. the fact that it came to a conclusion contrary to information already presented in the article and supported by academic surveys (forecasts) is not relevant. Wikipedia is all about fairness and balance. We all know this.

So there were major problems with S's arguments.

Now all this would be something not unheard of it were not for the following. Other editors have raised the question of WP:OWN in relation to S. Octoberwoodland did so in the discussion linked above, while the comments of PaleCloudedWhite in the same place also relate to it. Futhermore, PCW drew attention to this unsolicited post by another editor on his Talk page, which says: "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article (WP:OWN). Just look at his talk page to get an idea of his conception of a collaborative encyclopedia. The only way to shut him up would be to make a consensus building talk, as I think that most people agree that the Brexit page cannot only rely on academic studies..."

Not surprisingly, S refuted the idea of him or her being involved in WP:OWN, but then said "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." - which kind of flies in the face of that refutation.

I also draw attention to the last comment on the Talk discussion about my edit, wbich says: "Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." " Surely Wikipedians should not have to put up with the kind of behaviour being talked about? It is wearing. It puts good editors off of Wiki, sometimes permanently.

A day or so ago, in that same discussion, I wrote: "I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported." S duly "obliged" with more reversions. I had by then read a lot of S's talk page, which shows this (discussion with an Admin about avoiding a ban) and a multitude of 3RR warnings.

I am of course far from being the only editor who has had edits to the Brexit article reverted by S. Asarlaí has also experienced it. See here. And I should add that IMO Asarlaí's contributions are exemplary, far superior to mine.

I would like it to be possible to make good edits to the Brexit article without there being any risk of reversion for spurious reasons by S.

Two more edits by me were reverted by S overnight. One in particular I am bringing to attention. This is the comparison. S uses wording in his or her edit summary which frankly I find distasteful. But much more important is the problem with the reversion. A study which makes a forecast of something is a forecast. It cannot be anything else, no matter how reputable the people or organisation responsible. So the phraseology "It forecasted that Brexit would ..." (my words) is correct. Whereas the statement "The study found that Brexit would..." (S's words) cannot be anything other than incorrect, because the study is a forecast, and therefore saying that something would happen, when it is only what the study says, is a misrepresention. This may be considered a minor point - I disagree. I wouldn't and couldn't of course make the following point in the article, due to SYNTH , (although if I noticed an RS that made the point I'd include it) but there were a multitude of pre- and post-referendum forecasts and studies which said that a pro-Brexit vote would be next to cataclysmic. Yet employment in Britain has as it stands right now never been higher. So study after study turned out to be so much waste paper. And therefore to say that something will or would be the case in the future wrt. Brexit is itself a contentious thing to say. But saying something is forecasted, no problem with that. I have not taken this to Talk:Brexit as talk discussions take up a lot of time. This has, too, but it's far more important.

I feel that there is a major issue with S. By coincidence, at the very top of this noticeboard, in this discussion, yet another editor is alleging harassment by S. And that's on top of all that I have already written about. How many reports are needed? There are probably more that I haven't seen. I regret that I have to ask for a topic ban on Snooganssnoogans for Brexit-related articles. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't examined all the points raised, but it's hard to fault the revert by Snooganssnoogans at 12:07, 12 September 2019. The edit summary was "remove partisan commentary used as a rebuttal to academic research" and examining the edit suggests that summary is very accurate. From the ref, "new analysis was conducted by researchers at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands, rated the world’s top university for agricultural research". The ref also said that a fisherman who had founded the Fishing for Leave group, disagreed. Articles should be based on the best available sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't time to post anything of substance, but would request that this thread is not closed down quickly without thorough examination of the situation. As I have stated on the article talk page, my belief is that Snooganssnoogans is only interested in the Brexit article presenting a negative view of Brexit, and is hostile to material contrary to that perspective. I suspect that there are several editors who no longer edit the article due to the aggressive stance of Snooganssnoogans, who, in my view, edits the article so it is not "Brexit", but rather "Wikipedia's assessment on whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Significant investigation would be needed to check that, but on this one point (which I found by looking at recent edits), it is standard procedure for an article to state X where X is an assertion backed by academic research from (according to the ref) a leading authority on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is rich. In a recent RfC, PaleCloudedWhite argued that a peer-reviewed study on this topic should be excluded.[21] However, when a working paper on the very same subject that reached an opposite conclusion was being considered for inclusion on the talk page, PaleCloudedWhite failed to stick to his principled position and he did not advocate for the exclusion of the working paper.[22] A principled consistent editor would stick to the same position, regardless of whether the research in question reached a pro- or anti-Brexit conclusion. One example why editing on the Brexit article is dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article. Yes, the Brexit article is, overall, negative towards Brexit. When the government's own research shows the likelihood of massive disruptions to trade, interruptions in the supplies of key medicines and food, and inflation, and every single mainstream economist puts the impact at between 5% and 10% shrinkage of the UK economy, and when there's a risk of reigniting the Troubles and the Cod Wars, it's really quite hard to say much positive about it (unless you arte a tax exile hedge fund investor and are have massive short positions on the pound and UK companies, of course, in which case it's looking pretty rosy). Guy (help!) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• The WP:OWN accusations stem from the fact that various editors hate the fact that the Brexit article clearly and comprehensively explains the consensus in the economic literature that Brexit will harm the British economy, and have forcefully argued that the article should omit this relevant fact - when they try to scrub this content in the absence of consensus, I revert them. When editors are not arguing for scrubbing peer-reviewed research, they want to include rebuttals by politicians of the peer-reviewed research (e.g. "Studies XYZ say Brexit will adversely the British economy, but Boris Johnson says it will make the British economy stronger") - when they do in the absence of consensus, I revert them. See this Wired article for a decent summary of the discussions on the Brexit page.[23] That Wikipedia should rely on peer-reviewed research and academic assessments, and that academic research should not be rebutted by partisan actors are long-standing principles that I've applied consistently across Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• As for the specifics in OP, my stance is very simple: We cannot include a working paper that reaches conclusion A on issue X if we exclude a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue. That's a brazen violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Either both are included or neither. I explicitly said in the talk page discussion that my preferred position was to include both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I regret that Snooganssnoogans is continuing to cloud the issue, by re-stating his or her anger about the exclusion of “a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue”. I made the point several times in the Talk page section above-mentioned that the peer-reviewed study under contention was one of the possible effect on investment values. Yet the subsection that it was eventually excluded from was the UK financial sector, which an industry - not the same thing. At least one editor made that point in the discussion of whether or not it should be included. Further, there was no uconsensus in that discussion, so no precedence was established. Ergo, the argument is invalid. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You should stop regurgitating comments made by random Wikipedia editors (OP is full of 'random users XYZ said this about Snoogans"). This study[24] is about the UK financial industry, regardless of what some random editor who did not read the study claimed on a talk page once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you wrote “I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article.“

1. I wasn’t aware that any such request had been made?

2. You would topic ban an editor for one such transgression?

Or was the comment a curious case of sarcasm? I’m confused. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Could be referring to the heading of this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

^This, and/or Guy could be referring to the Boomerang; as for the OP, without prejudice to either position at this time, I'd refer you to the fact that we needn't give equal validity to viewpoints to satisfy NPOV, nor should we as it appears in this case. In any event I still think this is mostly a content dispute. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

But then the over-riding concept must always be, as stated in the guideline you quoted, John M Wolfson, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Thinking along those lines, of fairness in particular, in the case of the legal establishment in the US, judges who have strongly-held views on a subject must disqualify themselves where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Does the same principle apply in Wikipedia disputes? Boscaswell talk 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fairly as described by reliable sources, not by politicians or the general public. And there is a form of recusal here on Wikipedia, but it applies only to actual conflicts of interest, paid editing, and/or close personal connections, rather than merely having a strong opinion on something. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:INVOLVED for users with advanced permissions or acting as such. Uninvolved users may also be summoned to close RFCs, and depending on the contention in the RFC, should generally be the ones to do so. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

None of which situations apply to the underlying dispute at hand, IMO, which is about potentially-tendentious editing and nothing more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is one of false balance. The supermajority view of professional economists is that Brexit will be economically damaging to the UK. There are, to be sure, a handful of dissenters, and some primary research which lies in the long tail of the normal distribution of estimates, but there's no way to argue that the median is anything other than a substantial economic detriment.

Leavers have discounted these predictions since day 1, calling them "project fear". Before the advisory referendum it was predicted that some major UK car makers - Ford, Honda, JLR, Mini, Nissan , Toyota and PSA/Vauxhall all of which are foreign-owned - would scale back UK operations. This was dismissed as "project fear". Since the vote, investment in the sector has fallen from a run-ate of £2.5bn per annum or thereabouts to £90m, according to the SMMT. Honda is not jusrt scaling back, it is closing its Swindon plant. PSA is closing Ellesmere Port. Ford is closing Bridgend, the largest engine plant in Europe. Nissan has dropped plans to build new models in the UK. JLR is moving Land Rover production to Slovakia. So the realities, even before the deadline, are actually considerably worse than original forecasts. And that will affect, for example, the University of Birmingham, a significant proportion of whose engineering graduates go to Ford and JLR.

So yes, you can cherry-pick the occasional rosy estimate, but when the government's own Yellowhammer documents, the IMF and numerous other sources all predict 5%-10% shrinkage oft he UK economy, you don't get to offset that with a single document by the Irish central bank that thinks maybe UK banking won't be that hard hit for example. Especially when the big accountancy and consulting firms are all predicting large profits helping banks to move out of London to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. No passporting? No deal. The determination of hard Leavers to be outside of the free movement zone is a killer for international banks with European hubs in London (i.e. my customers), and you can bet your life that Frankfurt and Paris, especially, will be falling over each other to offer them deals, because they have been eyeing these prizes for a long time.

In fact, I have yet to see a single tangible benefit of Brexit proposed. Even Leavers coned it could be 50 years before the economy recovers. There are no sunlit uplands to be had. A few businesses will profit by lower wages and destruction of employment rights, and perhaps the more speculative goal of Leavers to set up Europe's offshore tax haven might come to fruition, but Europe is clamping down on that and I don't see them giving us a free pass. The Russian mob will be happy to hoover up some London real estate, of course, but for the majority of Brits it's going to be brutal, and the currency markets agree: the pound is at a historic low against the Euro and the US Dollar, albeit on a slide that started with the manifestly ineffective Austerity policies.

Now, you can still decide that you hate the EU so much that it's a price worth paying. That would be an ecumenical matter. Straight bananas, and all that. But Wikipedia is about the mainstream view, representing all significant views according to their weight, and the mainstream view, for all that half of the UK is in denial about it, is that Brexit is an economic clusterfuck. So this is really very much akin to the creationists arguing for equal weight in evolution articles. Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG:, I agree with the policy related part of the above (on a personal basis I agree with all of it, but the latter part is not particularly relevant to the TBAN discussion), but dear god...paragraphs, man! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Soz. Kept getting ECd and shit. @Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted paragraph breaks into Guy's long comment, to increase its readability. Guy, if you object, feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As Nosebagbear commented, that spiel was not particularly relevant. It also clouded the issue of that one content dispute. And was misleading. Unless one wishes to blame every problem concerning UK industry on Brexit.

Clouded the issue? Yes, because that one edit was pertinent only to the UK financial sector, not to the rest of UK industry, service or otherwise.

Misleading? Yes. Taking some of those vehicle manufacturers one by one, JLR had to close plants for long breaks some time ago, due to collapsing demand. Nothing to do with Brexit. Nissan models: it is manufacture in Sunderland of their luxury Infiniti brand which is to be shut down - it hadn’t been a success and they are pulling out of Western Europe altogether. Again, nothing to do with Brexit. PSA: this company took over the Vauxhall brand and plant. This has had falling sales for years, decades even. Very little to do with Brexit. Ford closed down its UK vehicle manufacturing operations years and years ago. I presume that this was because some execs with incredible foresight realised that Brexit was inevitable. See what I mean?

Again I ask, is it legitimate - as asked on my next previous edit - for Wikipedian Admins with very, very strongly-held views to make judgments on those with whom they disagree strongly on content matters? This question was not the purpose of my original post. I thought that there was going to be a “fair hearing”, I had some faith in the “judicial” machinations of Wikipedia. As things stand at the moment, it looks as if I was wrong. That faith I had has been severely shaken, if not completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please make a substantive response to the points raised above. I was the first to comment and mentioned a recent edit that I had investigated. Do you agree with what I wrote? If so, please state that so we know the boundaries of the situation. If not, please respond to the substance of what I wrote. Similarly for JzG's comments—respond to the substance rather than using debating tactics to deflect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about content, it's about conduct. You came here to complain about Snoogs and showed evidence that he had made unambiguously correct edits. That suggests to me that Snoogs ain't the problem here.

My views on Brexit are not exactly a secret, but have nothing to do with the well established fact that anything claiming benefit or zero detriment to the UK economy from Brexit is an outlier. Just watch the FOREX markets. Every time exit is pushed out or becomes less likely, the pound rises, and when no-deal became a real possibility after BoJo took over, the arse dropped out of it completely. The huddled masses can be fooled (we know this from the history of early 20th Century Russia and Germany). The currency markets are much harder to hoodwink. That's why George Soros is a billionaire, that's how Rees-Mogg is cashing in right now, and the truly bizarre thing is that the Tory Party, the party of the Blessed Margaret, can see the market positions and is putting its fingers in its ears and chanting "Laa laa laa I can't hear you" - the last time we tried this was withthe ERM, and that did not end well (though a friend of mine bought an E-type with the bonus he made betting against the pound that week).

As one who grew up in the late 70s and 80s, at one of the oldest and most conservative schools in the world, I find this stunning. About the only thing on which Thatcher and Ted Heath agreed was that membership of the EU was a good thing for the economy. Thatcher got us far and away the best deal of any member state, in fact. And the most troubling part for me is that it is not actually possible to work in or close to any area directly affected by Brexit without realising it's going to be bad. I work around banks and fintech. My friends are musicicans, doctors, professionals in IT and the motor industry. All these areas have seen brutal impacts already and expect far worse once we actually leave. Again, you can take the view that this is a price worth paying, that's not our problem to fix, but to deny that the price will be paid, and is already being paid, demands intellectual dishonesty, and that is our problem. Guy (help!) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG: It is not an encyclopaedia's job to seek 'The Truth' - either one way or the other - about a subject matter that, as part of its very nature, is a debate. It doesn't matter from an encyclopaedia's point of view if one position is right and the other wrong, or if one is more right than the other: unless the debate is framed in its entirety, readers will be left short-changed. That is one part of the issue here. The other is indeed the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. I posted here because I was pinged, and because more than one editor has, independently, commented that Snooganssnoogans 'owns' the article. I am not necessarily here because I wish to see anyone topic-banned, however I do believe that Snooganssnoogan's conduct should be questioned. In my view they are far too aggressive in seeking to make the article say certain things. The incident I give below is an example: how is it consistent with Wikipedia's processes for there to be a general support for forking a section of the article, then when the section is forked, Snooganssnoogans almost immediately reverts it back in? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, This is not about WP:TRUTH, it's about reflecting the supermajority professional view of a subject. Per WP:UNDUE, we doo not give outliers more prominence in the name of "balance". That's what Boscaswell is demanding. In fact, he goes further and demands that Snoogs is topic banned for adhering to our policies against giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Guy (help!) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course the general view of economists should be stated and summarised, but the article is already very long and should not devote a significant portion of its text to what are still, despite people's professional standings, essentially predictions and forecasts about what may or may not transpire. Also, you have not addressed the second part of my comment, regarding the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I wonder if you could be kind enough to offer a comment from Wikipedia's administration regarding the specific actions of Snooganssnoogans that I refer to above (namely edit warring against consensus)? Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, My response is, discuss it on Talk. This is what RfCs are for. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, it has already been discussed on talk, that is the point. Are you saying that when editors vote by eight to one to fork an article, then that counts for nothing because it hasn't been strictly formatted as an RfC? Is that your statement on how talk pages work? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

During that discussion, the section in question was trimmed by 40% and the content was forked to the other articles. What you're talking about is just a desire to scrub the article entirely of any text whatsoever on what the peer-reviewed research and academic assessments have to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that the article was too large and that the impacts section should be split off. The article is now even larger than it was then, and the 'impacts' section (something of a misnomer, since Brexit hasn't happened yet) still occupies about 30% of the article, so the argument for splitting it off has not diminished. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument that has gained traction at the Brexit article (espoused particularly by Snooganssnoogans) is that academic economic literature is the 'best quality' and must be used in preference to other sources regarding predicted economic effects of Brexit. This sounds very reasonable to the average Wikipedian, but it is a false narrative here, as Brexit is not a purely economic entity; indeed, it is primarily a political one, albeit with economic implications. But the insistence on citing economic studies has helped create an unbalanced and unwieldy article that is not likely to answer the fundamental question of readers as to why people voted to leave despite all the predictions of doom and gloom. That is the heart of Brexit, and this article barely addresses it. It should not be the purpose of the Brexit article to make an assessment on which side of the Brexit debate is 'right' by focussing on predictions of economic outcomes - particularly as economics is a social, not natural, science. Currently about 30% of the article is taken up by an "impacts" section, with significant text about the economic 'impacts', even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. There was general support to split much of this off into a separate article, yet when it was split off recently [25], Snooganssnoogans reverted the text back in, stating that "this text should not be forked" [26]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to take Boscaswell seriously after the first couple of paragraphs. That RFC that's being referred to concluded with "maintain the status quo until a consensus is formed", which was to keep the peer reviewed study out. To accuse Snoogs of lying because "well ackshully there was no consensus and that's why the study can't be included" is at least as misleading. So then we get to the banking scenario. It does not fill me with confidence that in a dispute over reliable sources and neutrality, Bos cited a press release instead of the actual study. And looking at that study, the way it was included definitely makes Bos look like a tendentious POV pusher. In brief, that study was clearly included as a counter to dismal estimates of Britain's economic future. "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay." However, by citing only the headline finding that "London will remain a large global financial center" and probably not even reading the actual study, key context is being missed. What the authors are concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's top financial centers in terms of competitiveness, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. Using this as some kind of contrast with earlier research, Bos is either trying to push a POV or he didn't actually understand what he was citing. I'll allow him to let us know which it was. Either way, to have gotten so far as to drag another editor to ANI for disputing the inclusion of such indefensible content, I have to support Guy's suggestion that Boscaswell is topic banned from Brexit. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So it looks like I’m gonna be topic-banned for an edit for which I didn’t actually read the survey, as proposed by an admin who abhors Brexit and brings up inaccurate bleuuggh about it, seconded by another who also misleads (this is WP:AN and not WP:ANI; I raised a series of points, not just one.) Anyway, my raising a series of points has been conveniently ignored. Into the too hard basket with it, let’s penalise that confounded bugger who dared raise the issue, eh? WP:OWN? Not just raised by me, there are several editors who did so, and are most likely, like me, completely over it. Anyway, go ahead, topic-ban me for a. having the nerve not to be a remainer while b. kicking up a fuss over a steamroller editor. Disgraceful behaviour. And by the way, if you’re gonna start topic-banning editors who don’t read surveys, there’ll be virtually no-one left. Snooganssnoogans, self-confessed king of the survey-citing editors, will be kicked out the door before you can say ‘Remoaner’. (Though I doubt that any of you guys will use that word.) So maybe this hadn’t been such a bad thing after all. Boscaswell talk 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your “consideration” of the points raised. Please don’t imagine that I’ll be responding further, or even reading any further comment here. It’s not possible to close my Wiki account, but if it was I would. As o said, my faith in the probity of Wikipedia has been destroyed. It was fast diminishing, and is now no more. All that having been said, it would be good if investigation could be given to the points raised by PaleCloudedWhite - who expresses him or herself exceedingly well and therefore deserves credit and an ear that both hears and listens - in addition to those raised by me re. Snooganssnoogans. “It would be good” I write. Go on, surprise yourselves. Boscaswell talk 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As a point of information, it's not possible for anyone at Wikipedia to "close" your account, but you always have the option of scrambling your password. And, of course, you can always just walk away and do something else.

Just be careful, though, if you scramble your password and come back to edit with another account, you have to either declare who you once were, so that you won't be accused of sockpuppetry, or stay completely away from articles and subject areas you edited with this account, as well as avoiding old disputes with other editors, as you would be making a "WP:Clean start", and those are the conditions for that. If you walk away, and then come back and continue editing with the same account, there are no conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all Tbans here First, Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or even that they won't listen to alternatives. Like minded editors are allowed to work on the same articles. If they are shutting out good edits then we have dispute resolution procedures to help. Like representatives democracy it's not always perfect but it's so hard to find a benevolent dictator these days. Boscaswell certainly should not be Tban'ed. There isn't strong evidence here of anything other than understandable frustration combined with inexperience. Sadly my feeling is the Tban suggestion had more to do with silencing a voice that didn't agree vs any reasonable protection of Wikipedia (the reason why we have tbans). From the outside looking in it seems like you have a group of experienced editors who don't want their view of the subject challenged. That challenge is coming from an editor who has much less experience navigating the Wikipedia ways and thus is both getting frustrated. That frustration, combined with less experience may be getting near a problem but our first resort should be understanding this is a good faith editor thus give them a hand rather than push them off the ladder. This complaint is a great example of needing a hand. I would suggest we close it, let them talk to an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin then decide how to best get consensus to fix the things they see as wrong with the Brexit article. If their posts on the Brexit page are like the opening post here, well I can see why they aren't getting any traction. Springee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee wrote: “Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules...”

Thank you, Springee, I agree.

So - forgive me for this plain-speaking comment - but it would be very, very helpful for the ongoing improvement of Wikipedia if all you Admins were to work out what you’re going to do about it. Work out how the rules can be changed such that what is grossly unfair editing behaviour can be stopped or even prevented. The status quo is failing, because it not only allows this behaviour, but Admins with the same POV cheer it on.

Being condescending to someone who in effect has brought this very important point to your attention is not a solution to anything. Lecturing that same someone about his point of view is not a solution to anything. Saying well done to the one lecturing with his POV is beyond useless. Admins responding to my OP have done all of those things; the lecturing happened repeatedly.

If you were to do that successfully and fairly, you would not only put Wikipedia in a far better light, but also gain some respect. Boscaswell talk 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just attempted to split down the size of the lede in the Brexit article, and as expected, User:Snooganssnoogans reverted the entire change and posted the following vitriolic edit summaries which are completely dishonest and threatening."restore the lede. it's bonkers to have a two-paragraph lede for something as massive as Brexit, but the desperate attempts to scrub the page of peer-reviewed research and academic assessments knows no bounds" and "the kind of in-the-weeds nonsense that some editors want in the lede out of desperation to shoehorn some pro-brexit propaganda in there". [27][28] What's disturbing about these statements is that I changed NO CONTENT WHATSOVER in the article. I simply moved the bottom three paragraphs into a section titled "summary" and moved the Table of contents up since the lede is way too large and other editors have tagged the article as needing liposuction performed on the lede, which contains a lot of materials which is too much for most readers. I did not at any time insert any "pro-Brexit" materials as alleged by this user. I don't plan to edit war, but it's time for someone to reign this editor in and stop their hostile, contentious editing style which prevents other more consensus based editors to be able to edit this article. Their constant edit warring and reversion of just about every edit made to this article by other editors is absolutely ridiculous, as well as their failure to observe any reasonable standards of working together with others and trying to get consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but these edits were not useful because the lead should be a summary of the article—hiding part of the lead in a new "Summary" section defeats the purpose of the WP:LEAD. People like to fiddle with articles like this, and adding a "too long" tag is a perfect example. However, it is obvious that the topic demands a long article so trying to squeeze it into someone's idea of an ideal length is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And what did you think about those edit summaries John? – Levivich 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is remarkable - an admission that Snoogans is adding text that they describe as "in-the-weeds nonsense", in response to text added by someone else that Snoogans tried to revert out and described as "too in-the-weeds for the lede"[29]. So, either they are being pointy and making an edit that they believe to be detrimental, or they were being dishonest when they criticised the other editor's addition, and really they don't care about anything other than ensuring the article pushes a particular political position. Either explanation is indicative of a problematic approach to editing the encyclopedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You seriously can't comprehend the following? This is not rocket science[30]: (1) The lede should not contain a discussion about the implications of Brexit for UK and EU law (because of WP:UNDUE), (2) If the lede is going to contain content on that issue, it should reflect the totality of RS content on that issue and not just some misleading unnuanced pro-Brexit propaganda about how the Brits are "taking the law back". In other words, if it is to be included, it should be WP:NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We all comprehend and the general consensus is that you are adding extremely POV materials and positions to the Brexit article and will revert and edit war with anyone who adds content which contradicts your view of the world. The Brexit article is extremely slanted due to your editing and POV pushing of "academia only" and negative Brexit viewpoints. I have a suggestion -- how about you take a break of let's say a month (30 days) from editing the Brexit article so consensus based editors can add balanced content to the article without constantly having you revert and edit war with anyone or everyone you disagree with. As it stands, that article is inferior and unbalanced and it's mostly your doing. And you may want to review what an editor actually has done with an article in terms of edits before posting the types of dishonest edit summaries you did when all I did was move the table of contents around to break up the excessively long lede for cosmetic purposes which was suggested by another editor on the talk page who said the lede was too long. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You think that your absurdly poor edit which removed all the content that you personally disliked from the lede (because "experts are idiots" or something along those lines), placed it in some bizarre new section just below the lede (to make it less visible), and turned the lede for Brexit (the by far most substantial issue in British politics since the end of the Cold War) into two meager paragraphs, is a good example of a great edit that was cruelly and unfairly reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed NOTHING from the lede and I changed NO CONTENT or the order which the content appeared in the article. The edit I did was cosmetic only and was no different than placing a tag. One way to pare down the lede and make it concise is too determine a cutoff, split the text into a lower section, then other editors can come back and refine and reinsert relevant content and rework it. Most of what is in the lede doesn't all belong there without some refinement, but this process which should naturally occur as other editors review the content cannot happen when a lone wolf editor runs over everyone constantly and prevents any edits they disagree with from being placed in the article and completely ignores consensus of editors. And then when an editor disagrees with them they post this type of comment, "The lede is very large, so let's add some misleading nonsense to it." Can't make this shit up."[31] Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Website selling Wikipedia articles

I did a quick search on Google for "en.wikipedia.org", and the first advertisement I saw was from "Wikispecialistllc", and the description said that "Improve Your Wikipedia Presence: We'll Create, Optimize & Protect Your Pages! Deals for First 100 Users. Additional 30% Discounts.". This may be a violation of the Wikimedia terms and conditions, as they might as well not reveal that they are paid editors. They also said that they would make sure that their client's Wikipedia page isn't "misedited", which may mean either removal of fake information (which is ok) or removal of negative sourced information. According to their website, Abel Cullum is one of the articles they made. The article was made by Kind Herb, an undisclosed paid editor they employ. Another example of an article they claim to have made is Maliina Abelsen, by Algkalv, who is an autoreviewer. The website claims that they comply with Wikipedia's rules, but they didn't disclose their paid editing. The H Collective and Ballard Spahr were also apparently made by them. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dishonest spamming firms like this are known for lying about what articles they wrote. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_143#Wiki_Specialist_LLC. MER-C 09:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The H Collective was created by User:Erik, who is also its major editor. [32]. Erik has been around since 2005, and I know him from when he was Coordinator for WikiProject Film, and I was working on a lot of film articles. I respect Erik, despite our occasional disagreements, and highly doubt that he is paid editor.

Ballard Spahr, which already has a paid editor tag on it, was created by User:Eastlaw, another long-term editor (2006), whom I do not know. Eastlaw is the major editor, with two IPs, 72.37.171.60 and 174.141.199.182 the next two in line.

You said that these two articles were "apparently" made for Wikispecialistllc. Where did your information come from? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, they claimed that they made these. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see now. The company is probably lying about some of these or just edited the articles and claimed they made it. I'll see if I can report their ad. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm inclined to believe two things. First, they are indeed doing undisclosed paid editing here (or at least trying to) and (B) that some of their claims are bull. Still, worth investigating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I reported their ad on Google just now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

About their FAQ:

Q: Is Wiki Specialist LLC affected by Wikipedia’s policy on paid editing and other related bans? A: No company or individual can make any changes to its wiki page which leaves an open opportunity for the competitors to make wrong edits and add misinformation to defame the brand’s reputation. Wikipedia has banned many individuals and brands for disregarding this strict policy of the platform. Wikipedia clearly states that “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Wiki Specialists LLC updates and edits the page content as the outsourcing company in order to avoid any rule violation.

What they are doing isn't really helping the encyclopaedia, so ignore all rules doesn't apply here.

They even said that the Wikipedia article about their clients belong to their clients, which violates the fact that no one owns any articles here. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention indicating that by outsourcing it that somehow avoids our rules on it. And they would seem to be directly editing the articles. Not to mention that it's embedded into the TOS as well as local policy. Wonder if we can get the nice people at WMF Legal to send another C&D letter Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

​​Perhaps a simple ammendement to WP:COI is in order? Obviously their "loophole" isn't actually a loophole at all, but if we were to amend the policy to explicitly address this, it could drive off some of their clients who bother to read the COI guidelines. Perhaps text along the lines of "Ignore all rules can not be invoked in order to avoid disclosing your COI, as per the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, you must always disclose any possible COI." and "simply outsourcing your edits to another company or person does not exempt them from the COI guidelines, as they must disclose that they are being de-facto paid by the article's subject, even if they are being hired through another company." Perhaps a bit wordy, but it would do. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We've already established these spammers have zero integrity. What's stopping them from continuing to lie about our policies if we make this change? Being their clients and caring about the purpose of Wikipedia are already mutually exclusive. MER-C 19:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

​I don't think their clients do know about the purpose of Wikipedia, though. Maybe changing our policies is a bad approach- I mean really, do you know many people in real life who actually know how Wikipedia works? I don't, because there's no one to teach them otherwise. What we need is education, to teach people why editing pages where they have a COI is a bad thing. Though I'm not quite sure how we would accomplish that- What if started a "COI Academy", where we could have lots of resources on disclosing your COI, making edit requests, and the like? Not sure- but I honestly don't blame most people who hire this company, because they probably don't know what they're doing is wrong. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

We could also have alternative COI warning templates which encourage people to learn to edit responsibly in edits where they have a COI. Plus, we could have a dedicated area for COI editors with questions and concerns. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Er, the templates would also link to the academy. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Paid editors lie about their past articles, and Wikipedia policy, continually. For a recent example from just last month, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 148#"The Digital SEO". And this notice is on the wrong noticeboard. As MER-C pointed out, this paid editor has already appeared on the correct noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if Google inserted a link to WMF's "you don't have to pay..." above every ad for article writing services. Guy (help!) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, regarding The H Collective, I created it of my own volition. I did not do it for anyone and certainly not for pay. My takeaway is that coverage of the company has been pretty basic, and the article is detailed and structured enough to warrant an outside party making a claim to writing it. If the company gets bad press, I would gladly include that in the article. Other editors are welcome to review the content and provide feedback to ensure that the article is encyclopedic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I don;t think there's a scintilla of evidence there's anything untoward about the article or Erik's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Apart from paid editors lying through their socks, just from force of habit, at least one of them has claimed authorship of a few articles (quite visibly, which seems an odd strategy for a rather secretive business) and then complained about them on here, all just to discredit one (unpaid) author who had created them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting page protection for Eucalyptus regnans

An IP editor User:178.255.168.193 has been making an edit without explanation, source or discussion. I have reverted them twice and made comment on their talk page here requesting they provide a source or at least discuss the change but they have made the same change a third time here. Could an admin please provide partial page p[rotection please at it seem they are unwilling to discuss this and I don't want to get into a 3RR situation. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, requests like these are generally made at WP:RFPP. Either way, it's clearly edit warring behavior so I've blocked them for 31 hours. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But at the same time, Primefac and Nick Thorne, there's nothing wrong with making a report here; it's just easier to make it over there. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac and Nyttend. Also, I didn't know about WP:RFPP, I do now. All good. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Left a note on your talk-page. Imho not a case for applying protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Long delay

Hi, the block appeal at User talk:ShappeAli has been unattended since 14 July except for closing on stale grounds as unanswered. He has apologised for his actions and if he is unblocked ive committed to monitor his edits and steer him clear of any trouble, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a checkuser block, which means that a checkuser has to unblock. Ordinary admins are not allowed to do so. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

An admin can accept a checkuser block appeal and unblock an account as long as it's done in consultation with a checkuser.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've commented. They can appeal in 6 months like normal or appeal to ArbCom if they think there's a good reason they should be unblocked outside the normal timeframe for appeals. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Violation of BLP

Handling this is not an administrator-only thing. Properly placed on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Convoluted user history

Could someone with a modicum of patience (i.e. not me) sort whatever is happening at User:Aadarsh Ashutosh? User:Aadarshashutosh and User:Ashuraaz23 both redirect to User:Aadarsh Ashutosh, but it is not a registered account. There have been various renames and moves involved and it's messy. Note I also deleted Draft:Aadarshashutosh, which was also a botched redirect of sorts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You might want to ping User:Martin Urbanec he did both of the page moves! Necromonger...We keep what we kill —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a little bit hard for me to comment if I don't see the history - the pages are already deleted. I believe the pagemoves were automated through, done on my behalf by the renaming interface. When I approved the request of the user to be renamed, it automatically moved their userpage to the new title. This should be clearly stated in the move reason - it's "Automatically moved page while renaming the user "xxxx" to "yyy"". There's no way how can this pagemove be to an userpage of non-existent user - the only way would be two consequent renames, which should be clear in the logs. Let me know if I can help you, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The user moved their own page before the rename, so when the user was renamed, the page that was moved was already a redirect to the non-existent name. Peter James (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:MergeHistory isn't much help. It looks like someone will have to perform a manual history merge. Or just delete everything – User:Aadarsh Ashutosh qualifies for CSD U2. That's not a very friendly option, but it's less work and within policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't seem like it's worth time to untangle. I slashed and burned it and let them know how to properly change their username. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. They seem to have a history with page moves in general that will likely need to be dealt with if it continues, no matter their username.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

user:Lectonar

• 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This admin has protected this page saying that there is addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material. Yet, I have been watching this page and I don't see that. Please either unprotect or give a valid reason why that page was protected.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a recent event, and not all IP edits were helpful. I've kept the protection deliberately short, things will probably calm down and reliable sources will appear. No need to bring this up here without contacting me before. Lectonar (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

An IP has been adding soucred information then a user who actually had made problematic, poorly sourced edits(see the history page) went to ask for page protection. This is unfair and it's against what Wikipedia stands for, which is to be a free encyclopaedia for all.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I brought it here because an immediate action should be taken by notifying you not to do such wrong protection again and to immediately unprotect that page. IP edits were very sourced. You just killed what wikipedia stands for.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's cut down on the hyperbole, shall we? El_C 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow and you just went there and reverted me saying the coined edit summary "can't used same sources for new addition" even though that addition was there before and was removed because "not needed" like a totally subjective opinion.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "coined"? Yes, that was a mistake. I corrected and further qualified. El_C 14:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C You use the same edit summary when reverting edits made by newcomers or ips when they like, change an information(that you don't know much about) without changing the source. Notice that I am by far the most editor who has made edits there [33] and you had made one or two edits there. Sadly, it's so obvious that you assumed bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith — I just misread the source. It happens. I had no idea who edited the article how often. That is not something I look into ordinarily when editing. El_C 14:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse protection - most IP edits have been constructive, and the few disruptive IP edits don't rise to my own personal threshold for protection (I would have declined the RFPP request) but protection was within admin discretion here and the protection time is suitably conservative. @SharabSalam: you need to dial back the rhetoric and understand that we're all trying to do what's best here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse protection (basically per Ivanvector), and why was this not raised on Lectonar's talkpage before being brought here? Yunshui ^雲_水 14:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This ip 184.170.174.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a lot of sourceed improvements to the article. The user wanted to revert them but was unable so they requested a protection. What is shocking is that they succeed. I feel bad for the IP.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam edit summaries like this are very unhelpful, to say the least. You may want to knock off that kind of statement, it can be seen as a personal attack. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill, it's true. You can't just say that's "not needed" while relevant sources mention it, frequently, unless we are going to write wikipedia with Anglo-American focus.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam You just doubled down on what you said on the talk page edit summary. Wikipedia is not written with an Anglo-American focus, it's written with a Neutral point of view. To say other wise is to accuse that person of POV editing. Unless you can back it up with diffs, it could be considered a personal attack. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: That does not explain why, when you disagreed with an administrator's decision, you did not ask them about the decision before coming here. So I ask again, why was this not raised on Lectonar's talkpage first? Yunshui ^雲_水 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui I was thinking the protection was a mistake and I except that admins will remove the protection immediately when they see it. There was no disruptive or unsourced edits. I doubt that if I went to the admin talk that the admin would unprotect it. A while a ago there was the article of Ibn Saud and it was protected. the protection was obviously wrong. However, admins kept trying to excuse the protection until it was brought to the Arbitration Committee and then it was removed. I wanted to go to the last phase straight because I didn't want the protection to last for so long.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Ibn Saud situation was much different from this. That was an article indefinitely protected under auspices of an Arbcom decision which turned out to be out of scope on review and was properly reversed. This is an administrator reviewing a reported pattern of disruptive editing and deciding to place a restriction which expires in less than 24 hours, which is squarely within their discretion. IP editors can suggest changes on the article's talk page, and you can review the material that was being added and add it back yourself if you like, as long as you're checking its accuracy and making sure no policies are being violated. You should do that, and drop your accusations of abusive behaviour. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

So far, I didn't accuse any admin of being abusive. All I am saying is that the protection is wrong similar to the protection of Ibn Saud. The admin should be notified to review the requests of protection before making the protection. And why would helpful IPs have to go through all of that process(request edit in the talk page etc etc) to make a helpful edit.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add that I object to the (repeated) insinuation that I did not review the article and its history before protecting. Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

May I please note that in the Ibn Saud case, SharabSalam went straight to AN without even caring to notify me, not taking about asking to remove protection. Another editor notified me, and I immediately agreed to remove protection. Accusing me in that "admins kept trying to excuse the protection until it was brought to the Arbitration Committee and then it was removed" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. This is not what happened. I suggest to trout SharabSalam for repeatedly bringing issues to dramaboards without discussing them with an admin first.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know who protected that article. When I asked here why that article is protected an admin called "dot" or something like that kept making excuses although it was so clear that it shouldn't be protected, that's what I referred to. I left that discussion and didn't bother, but then after 5 or 4 days and admin unprotect the article, I went to the discussion and saw that there was a conversation and someone brought that to ArbCom. So yeah. You can't easily make an admin admit that they made a mistake simply by approaching their talk page. Also as I said I wanted to remove the protection not to report the admin even though I asked that the admin gets a warning not to accept any request for protection without reviewing it. We would use a bot if reviewing wasn't necessary.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) So you basically did not care to conform to the policies, you left an accusation at a drama board and did not care even to follow it further, you still do not understand what happened and continue spreading disinformation, and of course you are right and everybody else is at fault. How nice of you. If someone is here to get a warning this is you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I admit that I should have gone to his talk page first but I was in hurry and wanted the page to be unprotected immediately without long conversations. Yet, it didn't.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Protection should be removed: not all administrator actions were helpful either, but that doesn't mean the result should be desysopping. Peter James (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock assist

Hi, can anyone help me by 1 month range blocking whatever range includes

• 101.78.169.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.78.245.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Since about April 2019, an editor of questionable competence who jumps around Hong Kong IPs keeps making problematic edits, usually in areas related to Indian personalities Himesh Reshimmiya and Ram Kapoor. It's typically ridiculous overlinking like here. Or weird choices like here, where he adds almost 20 "notable works" titles under Ram Kapoor's name, when most of the other people have 2 or 3 listed. The user has no concept of what is acceptable editing behavior or not and their choices are sometimes way out there like with that Ram Kapoor example. Here, he doesn't know what to capitalise. More overlinking here. More miscapitalisation in April 2019 here and here. Here he wants to list every celebrity that attended another celebrity's funeral. It's relatively minor crap, but done over and over. There's no apparent way to communicate with them and poor Ravensfire typically has to deal with the cleanup. That's gotta suck. They've also used IPs:

• 101.78.237.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.78.170.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.255.71.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I know that last one is not helpful for a range block, but since I'm here, I'll leave it for archival purposes. I typically have just blocked the individual IPs for varying amounts of time. Most recently, one month each for the ones at the top of the report. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Have you tried {{IP range calculator}}? --Izno (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

All IPs are in the ranges:

• 101.78.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 218.255.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

but it looks like within each of these they are using smaller ranges, which for CIDR notation would have to be split into:

• 101.78.168.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 101.78.232.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 101.78.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 218.255.68.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 218.255.72.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 218.255.170.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 218.255.172.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

which is just over a tenth of the /17 and /16. Peter James (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram unbanned immediately (temporary injunction in Fram case)

The committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1a of this decision and its supporting principles and findings are passing, and so Fram shall be unbanned immediately, without awaiting the close of the case. The remainder of the decision remains pending. As the status of Fram's sysop rights has not been decided, Fram is not to be resysopped during this interim period.

For the Arbitration Committee Worm^TT(talk) 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Fram unbanned immediately (temporary injunction in Fram case)

Problems with AFD nominations and with copyright issues

Hi all. I am concerned that there is a problem with a massive amount of articles (50?) brought to AFD by User:Softlavender without any responsible investigation into whether or not the individual articles are actually notable. All of the articles were created by User:Niggle1892, and are of recordings by the opera singer Frederica von Stade. Softlavendar brought the issue to a discussion at WP:WikiProject Opera where another editor expressed concerns about copyright problems on those articles. However, the consensus there seems to be, aside from the issue of copyright, that the articles in question are notable. Softlavendar went ahead and nominated all of them. I'm familiar with many of these recordings, some of them are actually Grammy Award winners, so notability through a quick cursory search would have been quickly established. Some help with copyright issues, and stopping an unnecessary flood of articles into AFD would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have investigated all of the articles, and they all fail WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. They all fail all of those criteria. Criterion 1 specifically says "Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article." Significant coverage is specifically not enough for a classical-music album article. One or two awards is also specifically not enough for a classical-music album article.

In fact, the user was warned on their talkpage several months ago by Richard3120 to stop creating these articles [34], but they went right on doing so. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 is there some reason that you didn't ask Softlavender about this on her talk page before coming to the dramaboard? WP:AGF applies to long time editors as well as newbies. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I came here, because Softlavendar wasn’t getting any support from the other editors at the project, and then went ahead and nominated a ton of articles for AFD anyway. We were already discussing the issue. There was no reason to discuss it anywhere else, after all these AFDs were posted without gaining any support (rather opposition). Being familiar of the works in question, it’s clear to me due diligence was not done. This comes off as a personal vendetta and not a rational decision. It’s going to create a headache at AFD for admins.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal vendetta against whom? MarnetteD is absolutely right about WP:AGF. I didn't even read the discussion at the project thread you mention. Once I found the notability guideline, I investigated each of the articles, and they all failed all of the criteria of the guideline, so I nominated them all, and then left a brief note about the guideline on the project page. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 your post is full of assumptions and accusations for which you presented no evidence. Claiming someone is not acting rationally is a personal attack for which you should apologize. FYI admins deal with mass AFD nominations on many occasions without the need for aspirin. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Softlavender was acting with good intentions, but I agree the mass AfD nom was not great. Since all ~50 albums have similar sourcing, and since the reason given for each nomination was identical, it probably would have been better to start by nominating 1-3, then based on the consensus around those, decide whether to nominate others. The copyvio issues are worrying, but I think the notability is there in most cases. Softlavender is focused on them failing the notability criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings, but that's a Wikiproject advice essay, not a guideline. The articles do seem to pass WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.

Also, it might have been nice to reach out to Niggle1892 first, instead of dropping a house on them in the form of 50 AfD nomination notifications. They seem to respond well to constructive criticism, and to be eager to improve their article writing skills. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think sticking 50 AfD templates on Niggle1892's talk page was just plain silly. It is possible to file a single AfD with multiple articles; if Softlavender believes all 50 fail roughly the same notability guidelines, there's no reason they couldn't have been managed in a single debate. For now, I think we should just let the AfDs play out and see where we are in a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Softlavender's proposal to delete almost all of my articles about albums. (I apologize if this is the wrong place to do so, but I've never been in this situation before.) (1) I don't think it's fair to characterize my articles as puffs. I've included negative critical comments as well as positive ones - indeed, I've tried so hard to represent critics' opinions fully that I've erred on the side of reporting them in too much detail. I have no personal or commercial interest in promoting record sales - my sole aim in writing my articles was to provide something that would be of interest to people like the four or five a week who, for the past decade, had been consulting Frederica von Stade - Mahler Songs. (It was the longevity of this article that made me imagine that others in the same vein might be acceptable.) (2) My album articles have been reviewed or edited by several experienced Wikipedia contributors - including Ser Amantio di Nicolao - without anyone but Softlavender asking me to stop writing them. (3) Softlavender has written that Richard3120 left a message on my talk page advising me to desist from what I'd been doing. In fact, after redirecting one of my articles, Richard3120 advised me what I should do to make them more viable: he said that it was mentions of reviews that were "the information that should be added to the articles as soon as possible - they certainly won't be put up for deletion with a couple of trustworthy reviews in them". (Little did he know.) (4) Wikipedia has many excellent articles about popular recordings, but very few about classical recordings, and most of those that do exist seem to be little more than stubs. Speaking as a Wikipedia reader rather than a Wikipedia contributor, I would love it if there were a dozen in-depth articles about different recordings of Der Rosenkavalier that would help me to decide which would be the one I would most enjoy. My hope was that when I'd finished my own little album project - which I'd almost completed when Softlavender intervened - other people would take up the baton and develop Wikipedia into as valuable a resource for classical record enthusiasts as it is for lovers of rock, blues and jazz.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This the situation that WP:FAIT is meant to prevent. Softlavender may be right that the articles are non-notable, but didn't have concensus to proceed. There are a few of these I see as COPYVIO (eg: Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording) or Die Schöpfung & Harmoniemesse (Leonard Bernstein recording) in that while they are sourced quotes from reviewers, they are far too long, and presented in Wikivoice (not quoted) and need necessary excessive trimming, paraphrasing, and quoting to be acceptable here, though the revisions with the copyvios are likely better dealt with by revdev rather than a WP:TNT approach as other parts of these articles are fine. But more importantly, did Softlavender ever give Niggle892 the opportunity to fix these or notice these may be problematic, before the AFDs? I'm not seeing that. That, coupled with the FAIT aspect (expecting Niggle1892 to address 50 AFDs at once) is extremely wrong. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for a compromise would be to take the following steps:

1. With SoftLavender's consent, mass-close the AfD noms per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 1 (nominator withdrawal), this is a non-prejudicial close so they can be re-nom'd later if needed.
2. Discuss with Niggle1892 and others, preferably on an appropriate project page.
3. Following discussion, if consensus says that some or all of the albums should be deleted under similar notability criteria, open a single mass-AfD per Ritchie333's suggestion.

I don't think that SoftLavender is necessarily in the wrong here, but since there has been significant concerns about their actions I think it would be best to follow a sort of BRD cycle here by closing the noms and discussing further. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. The 50 AfD noms are totally unwieldy, and we need some centralized discussion. What's happening now is that those who care to participate in the deletion discussions are copy-pasting their comments over and over, so that we have 50 largely parallel discussions, which is totally intractable. Colin M (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. Many of these albums clearly pass WP:NALBUM (grammy-nominated, subject of multiple reviews, articles, etc.) Note that the noms are all copypasted with the sole rationale "Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings." Additionally, those "criteria" are merely an essay while WP:NALBUM is an official guideline. It's impossible to give each nomination careful consideration when so many have been nominated en masse like this. A very poor move. If nothing else, the nominator should at least withdraw the AfDs that have zero !votes so far, without prejudice to renominating (at most two or three at a time) after the remaining AfDs have closed. In the meantime, I'm going to start participating in the 50 AfDs, carefully examining the articles and doing WP:BEFORE before making a judgement. I wish the nominator had done this, especially since there was an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Opera in which most of the participants disputed the rationale as well as an ongoing discussion on the "criteria" at WikiProject Classical music here . Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on the proposals or the legitmacy of the articles on notability grounds, but if you want to get rid of articles with copyright violations, just blank them and list them at Copyright Problems. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Masem's well-thought out proposal. @Softlavender: I too would request that you withdraw your AfD nominations so the user has a chance to address any shortcomings in the articles and/or effectively respond. As Masem said, WP:FAIT applies here and, IMHO, so does WP:BITE. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that is User:Creffpublic's proposal you see above, it's not mine, but I do fully agree with it as it matches what I think should have been done to start. :) --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you to everyone who has advised me how to make my articles better. After thinking about what has been said, I've cut out all my paraphrased reviews and replaced them with notes directing readers to their sources. I hope to improve my articles by adding a few short quotes from critics, but this will necessarily take some time - I have something like 150 reviews to work through, and it's obviously vital that the selection of excerpts is scrupulously fair to the reviewed, the reviewers and the readers. Some editors have suggested that I should remove track listings too, but I still think that these have some modest value - they're helpful for readers for whom, like my partially-sighted father, the tiny print on a CD booklet is just too small to see, and they're a handy way of providing links to other articles about different composers, librettists and compositions. On a related matter, I've only created one article on Wikipedia apart from those at issue here, namely a biography of Roly Drower. I noticed that Softlavender, who of course it was who put all my album articles into AfD, wrote about the Drower article too on Drmies's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Don't_know_what_to_do_about_this. On September 18, she wrote "Roly Drower appears to be a vanity article on a deceased loved one, who was notable only locally on the Isle of Man. All of this user's article creations are seriously problematic. Need someone to pull the trigger on some or all of them. Thanks." Later the same day, she wrote: "I agree that AfD is probably the best route. I would prefer that someone else do that on the bio article, if someone feels to...thanks..."[sic]. I thought I might explain that I am not a member of Drower's family and have never thought of him as a "loved one". I was a contemporary of his at university, where he and his friend David Jewitt were the outstanding graduates of the class of 1979. Googling them lately out of curiosity as to what had become of them, I thought that a pair of articles about the two of them would be a worthwhile study in contrast and similarity. The portrait that I painted of Drower was very much warts-and-all, mentioning his failure to take advantage of his elite schooling, his failure to complete his Ph.D., the failure of his marriage and his failure in the high-profile, internationally reported court case that was the tragic climax of his environmental activism. I wasn't attempting a belated funerary eulogy.Niggle1892 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to strip out the entire review (eg like you did here [35]), you are allowed to use short quotes (which generally means a short phrase, or maybe a sentence) as long as you include that in quotation marks and have immediate sourcing afterwards, and you can paraphrase and summarize other parts. See how most film articles cover the critical reception. --Masem (t) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging advice. The reason that I stripped out the reviews entirely is that constructing fifty collages of quotes, summaries and paraphrases from some very long, complicated and mutually contradictory reviews would take many weeks even if I had no other business to attend to. I imagined that leaving things as they were for that length of time might be a serious issue for people who were concerned about copyright - assuming, that is, that the articles aren't all deleted anyway (in which case I'm hoping for a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the creator of the most Wikipedia entries ever erased in one go!).Niggle1892 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please fill in descriptions

any missing source/author/licence info from deleted local page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diopsis.jpg to c:File:Diopsis.jpg. Thanks!--Roy17 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The only information on the en.wiki version of the page before deletion was the {{GFDL}} template. No source link/etc. to copy over. --Masem (t) 15:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A Village Pump RfC was archived without closure

The following Village Pump RfC was automatically archived without closure: RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019). I would like to request that an uninvolved admin either closes it officially or reopens it by moving it back to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), with a Bump template added to prevent further accidental archival of the topic. --Hecato (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks like that discussion died a natural death. If someone really wants to I wouldn't object, but I'm not sure it's necessary either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I probably should have mentioned somewhere that I requested a closure at WP:ANRFC not too long ago. While I agree that it died a natural death, having a definitive close from an uninvolved editor is worthwhile as I think it will prevent edit warring over what tag to apply. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think that a formal closure of the discussions there is in order. Otherwise, the matters being discussed there remain in an uncertain limbo, which defeats the purpose of the RfCs occurring in the first place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Hecato (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Community-ban appeal

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

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310 § Standard offer request - Elisa Rolle

This is an appeal for reconsideration of the July 2019 community ban of Elisa.rolle (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Elisa began editing in March 2017 and has made 17,662 edits; her 10,746 edits to mainspace (edit counter) include 717 articles created. She was blocked indefinitely in August 2018 after posting a copyright violation on her talk page. Before that, she had been blocked four times, including twice indefinitely for copyvio. In July this year, she appealed the most recent block. In response, Ritchie333 opened the AN discussion linked above, which Yunshui closed as unsuccessful, converting the block to a community ban. Several editors felt the close was premature, and Elisa didn't realize that an AN discussion might lead to a community ban (see further discussion on AN and with Yunshui).

Elisa would like another chance, this time with more formal support. The situation was caused by a combination of her not understanding copyright, having difficulty summarizing because English is not her first language, working too quickly, and feeling overwhelmed once the complaints began. To try to help her, several of us—Valereee, Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and myself—have formed a mentoring collaboration. In addition, Victoriaearle worked through a tutorial with Elisa in July; Victoria's assessment is here. Valereee has created a mentoring plan at User:Valereee/ER. In brief, Elisa will focus at first on adding sources and fixing close paraphrasing in articles she has already created. She will always summarize source material in her own words; there will be no copying, no matter the copyright status of the source. If she wants to make any substantial addition, she will first bring it to User:Valereee/ER for feedback. And she will abide by 1RR for 12 months. The mentoring team will keep a close eye on her editing, and if an uninvolved admin is needed (for example, should another copyvio occur), GoldenRing has agreed to be available. Thank you for considering this.

• Support as proposer. I'm confident that with this support Elisa will be an asset to the community. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed but did not participate in the last discussion, partly because I was unable to decide. But this level of support, indeed, seems promising. El_C 02:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, if for no other reason than it sounds like Elisa.rolle will be quite thoroughly monitored. creffett (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It sounds like the user will have lots of help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support With such a strong mentoring team, this editor deserves another chance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Cullen.--Jorm (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support That's a pretty strong group of mentors - I'm willing to give it a shot. — Ched (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per endorsement of the mentors. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support I saw this proposal being prepared, and looked into the details then. I think it has as good a chance of being a net positive as any ban appeal I have seen. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as this is the best-prepared appeal I recall. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support because I trust Valeree and Victoria. And, I do think the provisions to be well enough. ∯WBG^converse 05:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Let's give it a go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Yep, that's a pretty impressive mentoring lineup. I'll just add, while I'm here, that I think the "Any failed indef block appeal at ANI automatically converts to a community ban" thing has turned out to be counter-productive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support- Seems like a sufficiently restrictive set of conditions, and vigilant enough mentors. Why not? Reyk _YO! 08:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I only wish we could offer this level of support to more users who run into problems. GoldenRing (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Elisa.rolle ought to embrace 1RR permanently, firstly because it's good behaviour (WP:BRD), and secondly "because English is not her first language". Anybody playing the language card should be aware they might be misunderstanding events and tread carefully. Cabayi (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposal seems workable and promises a net positive for the project. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as member of the mentoring team. I believe Elisa will become a valued member of the community. --valereee (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support It'd make her CCI far easier to clear out with her actually being here, and I trust the mentoring editors greatly.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support She's unlikely to run into issues with so much assistance, and will become a valued contributor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - excellent plan for mentorship. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - looks like a mentorship with a high possibility of succeeding. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. – Levivich 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia loves second (and more) chances. My policy is to support so long as there is at least one willing and competent mentor. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support I !voted oppose for unblock the last time this came up because of the probability for recidivism in regard to copyvios. With these restrictions, I am all for giving Elisa another chance. It is wonderful that there are kind editors willing to help her. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support provided that she accepts the conditions stated by Xaosflux below.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I realise this is SNOWing, but I wanted to state my own support - that level of collaboration and support from multiple mentors, a tad embarassingly, actually made me tear up - we're supposed to be so hostile to each other it was great to see this level of help to get an editor back into the Community. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - of course. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per GoldenRing. New/newish users are constantly berated for not following rules that are NOT easy to find and aren't always as common-sense as we think. Simple education for an honest editor can go a long way. Close ASAP per WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I enjoyed working with Elisa, found her to be receptive and willing to learn, which goes a long way. It's work I enjoy and, though I'm not here everyday, will be available to look over her shoulder and continue to work with her as I did before we had to cut it short. It benefits the encyclopedia to have her work on her existing articles to weed out issues, with the help of others, and through that process she'll become a productive editor. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: So long as this collaboration holds, and Xaosflux's conditions are accepted and implemented, I have no objections. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a member of the mentoring team. SusunW (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support At first I thought this would be leading to a walled garden, protecting this editor from outside influence, but upon reading the actual proposal at User:Valereee/ER I find those fears unfounded. Good luck all in this endeavor. Valeince (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss (Elisa.rolle)

@SlimVirgin: as this is starting to SNOW support, just want to make sure the following "mechanics" represent the objectives: Elisa.rolle's community ban will be vacated, and a new set of editing restrictions for Elisa.rolle will be enacted: 1RR on all pages for 12 months and a set of article-space editing restrictions as outlined in User:Valereee/ER for 12 months, which may be relaxed or removed by the "mentoring team" early. If so, is there any diff's of Elisa.rolle's acceptance of the condition yet? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of SNOW, this should be allowed to run for a minimum of 24 hours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• That all seems reasonable - I'd specifically like to note I'm happy with the team removing the constraints early if they think it suitable Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My advice is not to rush anything nor to put any undue pressure on Elisa. Let's wait for her to post her unblock request, and if/when it's granted move at a leisurely pace. No deadlines and all that is my mantra these days. Victoria (tk) 17:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question: is my reading that only Goldenring can be considered as an outside admin to enforce possible violations correct, or can any uninvolved admin take action if needed? Valeince (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valeince: - the mentoring plan clarifies " GoldenRing has agreed to be available as an independent admin; of course any administrator is also welcome to act in any appropriate manner" Nosebagbear (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• Guy, this may seem a formality as I supported in the above discussion but CBAN discussions are required to remain open for a minimum of 24 hours with no early closes per WP:CBAN and this RfC. Appealing a CBAN falls into the same category since this is a consideration whether to uphold or remove the CBAN placed on her. A discussion was held after Elise's CBAN at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy with 24 hours remaining the minimum. Would you be so kind as to revert your early close and let it proceed for the 24 hours?.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, it won't matter. Although it was closed early, we are now beyond 24 hours since it began so I withdraw the above.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Moscow Mitch"

Heads up for admins: an advocacy group has released a Chrome browser extension which replaces "Mitch McConnell" with "Moscow Mitch" ([36]). Last time something like this happened we went through a few weeks of repeatedly removing "Drumpf" vandalism which mostly turned out to be accidental. Might it be worthwhile to add editnotices warning about the extension interfering with article editing, say at Mitch McConnell and other possibly related pages? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on an edit notice. On the one hand, I've had similar extensions cause problems for me in the past so an edit notice probably would help avoid some unintentional vandalism. On the other hand I'm uneasy about a preemptive edit notice for possible streissand effects. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter set to warn? I'm not sure if that would work though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This feels like a job for an edit filter b/c there's no practical way to edit notice all the pages where he might be mentioned now and impossible to do so in the future.--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Such scripts needs to be blocked by an edit filter. Edit notices are too easy to not notice and editors may not realize that the script is messing up the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Special:AbuseFilter/901 warns about the Drumpf plugin (and Special:AbuseFilter/614 stops the addition of Drumpf); similar things can be easily done for Moscow Mitch if/when it starts being a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for PenguinsElite

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

---

This has been going on for almost two years with the amount of suspected/confirmed socks found on the two categories (suspect and confirmed) and the fact that mostly one administrator confidently blocks the socks, I will describe the details along with a proposed ban for the user for making hundreds of edits during the time of the block by the original account. I see three administrators who've blocked the accounts who will be notified of my views on this.

PenguinsElite (talk · contribs) is a prolific sockpuppeteer who is deliberately evading the indefinite block placed by Ferret (talk · contribs) on 13 October 2017, later revoking talk page access on 22 October 2017 by Favonian (talk · contribs) due to a legal threat. The sockpuppet investigations archive page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PenguinsElite/Archive though it is not as large as some other sockpuppeteer's cases. I see dozens of user names with similar patterns and a few IP addresses have been involved to avoid detection by well known users who spots the editing patterns, e.g. by User:Mattythewhite. Although the edits are usually not vandalism, the edits have been made to evade the indefinate block by Ferret and Favonian; sometimes the edits follow a certain pattern, by changing some section headings (latest one I see is on Brendan Rodgers) which usually deduces that the newer accounts are sockpuppets of PenguinsElite.

The socks has been blocked by Mattythewhite in most cases since the point when the user has been very confident of the pattern used by the usernames when seen on the watchlist - e.g. "Themansionmaniac69", "MightyBoroWe'reGoingUp!" and "TheAllBlacksFan69" to name but loads. I would have thought the user would be aware of the sockpuppet rule but on the unexpected day, a few edits come by and a block followed that.

The usually affected articles involved by these socks either refer to Middlesbrough F.C. related footballers/staff like Ben Gibson or Garry Monk etc. and a couple of TV shows like The Voice (UK) or Emmerdale. The latest sock that Mattythewhite has seen as recently as today has the usual letter...number sequence or CamelCase usernames as I've mentioned previously.

I therefore move for a formal community ban against PenguinsElite (talk · contribs), applied to the entire en.wikipedia, of indefinite duration and in any case no shorter than six months from the last edit they make with any account or via any IP address. Then the user may edit using the PenguinsElite account if the appeal is successful by an administrator.

• Support as proposer. Iggy (Swan) 22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Minor point of clarification, I appear to have set a 1 month block, which Favonian up'd to indef. I have no real opinion to offer here, from what I can tell I did this block via an AIV report or similar venue, and not due to any familiarity with the user or article area. This is largely symbolic to formally ban them, but sure. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Per WP:3X, they are already indefinitely community-banned. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Ferret and Iggy the Swan: --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have not been aware of a community ban already being placed if there has been one. Iggy (Swan) 22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

But I do think WP:3X is to be read out carefully (by me) before doing something like this again. Iggy (Swan) 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No pressure, 3X is a relatively new policy and it was done with the sole reasoning to not need to individually CBAN prolific sockmasters, such as PenguinsElite. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for ban and article lock in RJ Nieto article

Requesting for ban/block of Object404 for insisting on preserving contentious content on RJ Nieto which are poorly sourced and cited. The article has sections that use citations irrelevant or not even discussing what it supposed to be a reference to. The article also cites Facebook posts and a website memebuster which both fails as reliable sources as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Yet Object404 insists that memebuster is a "reliable source" refering to a Talk page he himself created. He argues that memebuster has been "cited by CNN" but that doesn't make it reliable. News outlets cite blogs but that does not mean they are verified sources. News outlets also cite social media posts of random people. Memebuster is a blog written by anonymous people of unknown credentials. I have edited the article to remove poorly sourced and contentious materials but Object404 insists on preserving the contentious and poorly sourced version of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNDeSCRiPT (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Although this may be a BLP case, this seems way too premature for a block/ban. It doesn't even seem to be a discussion ripe for AN yet. AFAICT, it only involved a single revert. And they did point to a discussion which suggested memebuster may be an RS although in an unrelated talk page and with only one other participant I don't think it really establishes anything. It's possible Object404 was the editor who originally added the info, I'm not sure, but that was over a year ago. I don't zero recent attempt to discuss BLP with Object404. Heck they don't even seem to have been notified of this thread as the big boxes say you must do although I appreciate they are easier to miss on mobile. I suggest Object404 is reminded of our strong sourcing requirements and the need for being conservative and to discuss significant concerns before info is added /back for BLPs, and further help is sought at either WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N if need be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I wrote the above without looking at the disputed content, since it didn't seem necessary. Now that I've look at it, it seems even clearer cut a case of not something for AN. While it's true Facebook was cited, these sometimes seem to be posts by the subject themselves and are used simply as additional citations for when the posts have been criticised as covered in RS. Often quoting the original post in such instances, so it can be viewed in entirety, is fair enough and in any case can be discussed somewhere appropriate and doesn't seem the sort of problem requiring urgent removal. Some of the other cases I'm not so sure but still I didn't see anything close to being of concern from a single revert. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nil Eine. NoNDeSCRiPT has been repeatedly deleting properly cited content. -Object404 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you guys take a look at the content he has been repeatedly deleting? He's been doing this for sometime now. -Object404 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you should be the one investigated. You re-reverted the article again when the administrator clearly stated that some of the statements are purely cited on Facebook alone, are considered original research and memebuster is not a reliable source. The discussion page you provided as a "proof" is insubstantial as it is only written by you per se (anecdotal evidence / also original research). Plus the Template in RJ Nieto article already prescribed that "contentious and libelous" content may be removed especially the poorly cited ones. So by insisting on reverting poorly cited version, and contentious content on a living person's article, you are both edit-warring and overstepping Wikipedia rules. As far as I can remember, the last time I edited the article (which was months ago) I've put some citation needed tags on the questionable content but until now the content remain uncited and poorly uncited. The article is clearly libelous.

NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Move to ban Zombiedude101z

I move to ban Zombiedude101z. This user should be eligible for unblock consideration by the community no sooner than one year after their latest account creation or latest edit. Zombiedude101z has been a problem for more than six years. They were blocked on 2013-02-15 as a vandalism-only account. Since that point, they've engaged in significant sockpuppetry and block evasion. The unblock requests such as those at User talk:RevenantEditor187 and User talk:SkitterWeaverKhepri2012 and User talk:86.134.164.104 and User talk:EverettTheUrban show this person just doesn't get it, constantly blaming admins for blocking them and being very clear they will not stop evading their block. Someone operating from their IP address has made a death threat against a sitting U.S. senator at Special:Diff/901680343. I indicated at User talk:Zombiedude101z that I would push for a ban if any further block evasion happened. They subsequently set up SpeedyGonzales1488 (note the use of Nazi hate in that username, though that's an escalation for this person) to further evade their block; jpgordon confirmed the sockpuppetry (but didn't specifically call out the original account). Therefore, I move for a WP:CBAN on this user. I believe this is mostly a formality; we are long past the point when any admin would consider unblocking them, but I can't just declare WP:3X here. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, for all the documented reasons above.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support on the same criteria and for the blatant reasons above. If that was an actual threat that I can't see, shouldn't it handed off to the WMF to do the needful? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support and note that AngryJewbacca69 is also another sock in this group with a matching device to SpeedyGonzales1488. Nazi hate assertion appears to be correct.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - there's a much longer history of angry and duplicitous behavior. Not clear if the death threat and the random nazi stuff is just the latest attempts to titillate and get attention, but I don't really care. Kuru (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I won't even touch the Nazi issue or the death threat; simply put, the user is doing a heck of a lot of block evasion and sockpupptery. That's good enough for me. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I support the site ban, but why exactly can't WP:3X be declared in this case? Seems like it would apply here. SkyWarrior 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Govvy

I am confused, is the IP posting to my talk page trying to troll me? Govvy (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram

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

1. The Committee decides that Fram's ban was not required, and therefore vacates it.
2. The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
3. A Request for Comment will be opened under the Arbitration space, and managed by the Arbitration Clerks. This RfC will focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Redirects needs deletion in order to move draft to mainspace

I wanted to move Draft:Hurricane Lorena (2019) to main space because I think it passes WP:GNG. However, there's already a main space article (Hurricane Lorena (2019)) which is currently a redirect. This prevents me from moving the draft to main space. I did tagged it for speedy deletion for G6, but that was hours ago and it's still tagged for speedy deletion. Can somebody delete this so I can move the draft article to main space? I don't want to copy-and-paste the whole draft article to the redirect because there's multiple edits that helped with the draft article and doing the copy-and-paste would be saying that I did all the work. Thanks! INeedSupport ^:V 20:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. INeedSupport, just as a general note, admins are all volunteers (and it is the weekend) so it's very likely that some lower-importance CSD categories like G6 might take a while to be fulfilled. Patience is a virtue! Primefac (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Understood. Thanks for you help! INeedSupport ^:V 20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: - the lack of boring business meetings to work in really does seem to put a crimp into the editing corps' efficiency! Nosebagbear (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)