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	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	8	18	23	49
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	11	20	31
AfD	0	0	0	7	7

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 98 sockpuppet investigations
• 32 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 13 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 170 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 30 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7826 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ansariya ambush 2024-06-12 19:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Hunter Biden 2024-06-12 19:23 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AP2 flashpoint El C Draft:Naraz 2024-06-12 16:25 2024-09-12 16:25 move preventing eager new user from moving this draft back to another namespace (again) without page review BusterD Steps (pop group) 2024-06-12 15:50 2024-06-26 15:50 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Steps discography 2024-06-12 15:49 2024-06-26 15:49 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Stun Siva 2024-06-11 21:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Keffiyeh 2024-06-11 19:38 2025-06-11 19:38 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hari Singh Nalwa 2024-06-11 18:20 indefinite edit,move Continued disruptive despite semi-protection; WP:ARBIPA Abecedare Kuki war of independence 2024-06-11 17:38 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Koli war of independence 2024-06-11 17:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Naraz 2024-06-11 14:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; no objection for this subject to be created view draft if properly reviewed at NPP ; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Colombia 2024-06-11 05:19 indefinite edit Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Kelly A. Hyman 2024-06-11 04:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case White Mexicans 2024-06-11 04:06 2024-09-11 04:06 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Nano-ayurvedic medicine 2024-06-10 21:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per AfD discussion Vanamonde93 Tribal revolts in India before Indian independence 2024-06-10 19:19 2024-09-10 19:19 edit,move Sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala + others Abecedare Rebellions 2024-06-10 19:16 2024-09-10 19:16 edit,move Sock puppetry (LTA); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Principality of Sealand 2024-06-10 18:03 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute DrKay List of peace activists 2024-06-10 15:12 2025-06-10 15:12 edit Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 2024-06-10 02:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Modern American politics. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Carly Rae Jepsen 2024-06-10 00:56 2025-06-10 00:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Discospinster Al-Sitt 2024-06-09 21:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamis Kiggundu 2024-06-09 21:15 2025-06-09 21:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Aditi Rao Hydari 2024-06-09 20:37 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-09 20:33 2024-06-12 20:33 edit Persistent vandalism - modification to originally intended level. Amortias Nir Oz 2024-06-09 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of ongoing armed conflicts 2024-06-09 03:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Anarchyte Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 2024-06-09 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Russian Air Force 2024-06-09 01:56 2024-06-16 01:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up Robertsky IDF Caterpillar D9 2024-06-09 01:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Front for the Liberation of the Golan 2024-06-08 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Lok Sabha 2024-06-08 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND Ymblanter

Requests for closure

There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial ^# 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

  The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

  This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted two of the procedural RfC closes after a talk page request. I wrote: "Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure?" SharabSalam (talk · contribs) responded: "if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy."

  I have made these RfC close requests in part for editors like SharabSalam who do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC. I informed SharabSalam about how to make a close request which SharabSalam has now done for both of the RfCs.

  I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close that if they believe an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves.

  Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Wikipedia, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Wikipedia, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible solutions going forward

I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

• The nominator has requested the close
• A participant in the RFC has requested the close
• The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
• An administrator has requested the close
• If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question. I used to close RFC's all the time until I was asked to slow down/stop. I have not done as many closings since then. If there is a desire for more clerking on that board, I wouldn't mind helping out. A lot has changed since I stopped clerking it, but I have played it safe by avoiding doing so because I am not an admin. Would folks mind at all too much that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion or should I still avoid doing so? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd want to see why people asked you to stop. But there is generally no need for an admin to close things. I've gone trough that list and closed a number of them when I've had time. I think it's useful (and honestly I may start asking people at RfA if they've closed many, seems like a darn good way to judge people's ability to gauge consensus and explain their thoughts. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I can provide you the reasoning later tonight when I'm on Desktop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: As you can see here, several admins had major WP:CIR concerns with me; so my adopter, Swarm requested I hold off on closing discussions for the time being. That was a little more than a year ago now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Just so we're clear, you've moved well past the point of ruffling feathers as a newbie and absolutely no part of me thinks that any of that unfortunate episode is still relevant today. You know that, right? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Swarm: I do! It's just that you never responded when I asked if I should start closing things again a few months ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh man, I'm sorry MJL. :( I've had a bad habit lately of clearing talk page notifications with the intention of coming back to them, and then forgetting about the messages. That reminds me, I should go check on that right now. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Swarm: lmao it's all good! I do the same thing tbh It gets worse when you admin on another wiki.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem was, as Tony said, one user consistently flooding the board over the course of years. Said user has recieved the renewed complaints at this time and has made a pledge to substantially scale back their use of the board. I don't see the need to implement bureaucratic regulations in response to one specific problem that has resolved itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that that was the only problem. The really old ones are still not getting closed (except for those that were declined in the initial cull). I did a few myself, but stopped when it became apparent that no one else was taking part (perhaps just picking off the low-lying fruit). I don't want to adopt this board as my personal domain. It is shameful that a request has been open for 321 days at an admin board. SpinningSpark 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There has been a backlog at UAA since yesterday, and it just keeps on getting longer. Can some uninvolved admin kindly help out? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at it—appears any backlog has been resolved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; but if I look at Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues ... that has a lot of entries. Should we be concerned with both of these locations? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Michael Brown "recently deceased"?

Michael Brown died almost six years ago. Should Shooting of Michael Brown remain under DS-BLP? The article gets little attention these days, aside from a steady trickle of uninformed, quickly reverted edits by unregistered or low-time registered editors, which never warrant discretionary sanctions. If anything, the article would be better served by permanent semi or ECP than by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No longer recently deceased; no longer covered by BLP, DS or otherwise. In any case, agreed: Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brown may not be recently deceased but Darren Wilson, who killed Brown and who is discussed extensively in the article, is alive, as are other people mentioned in that article whose actions were controversial. That being said, I would not object to shifting to semi-protection if there is little disruption of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see that was done while I was researching and writing my comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP DS is usual assigned to the article subject, which is not Darren Wilson (police officer). Anyway. I removed the BLP DS. I'm not sure it is of any use anymore, regardless of these policy hypotheticals. El_C 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's not a biography so there was never any living nor recently deceased person as an article subject. In other words, as neither Michael Brown nor Darren Wilson were the articles subjects, by that token BLP DS was never justified. However I'd suggest that since the subject was the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson it was a fair call to apply BLP DS. After all to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." And in fact for all the nonsense going around at the time of the shooting, BLP concerns were always going to arise more for Darren Wilson than for Michael Brown. That said, many years after the investigations, I agree that there's no point keeping the DS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Death of X means X is the subject, even if it isn't a purely a biographical article. But perhaps you're right... I'm really not sure. El_C 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't count matters of race, do they? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on which race, and which AC/DS sanction one is looking to enforce. For example, WP:ARBANEG is specifically about race. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions could also affect matter of race in BLPs as well. If someone keeps modifying claims of the race of living persons in contradiction of RS, it IMO (bearing in mind I'm not an admin so never have to make such judgments) may be reasonable to give them a topic ban or something under the DS process where the awareness etc criteria are met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Wikipedia is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot [1]. Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [2] says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per [3]. How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "[4]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here [5]? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it[6] shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, everyone. What a bloody shame. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

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

---

I think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Wikipedia is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Wikipedia. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans [7].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi [Barbaria"], the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.

  Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?

  Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Wikipedia. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Wikipedia, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'

  Note: I oppose an on Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

  I have literally used that word once on Wikipedia and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Wikipedia should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Wikipedia should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​

  Note: YUEdits has made fewer than 500 contributions to Wikipedia, dating to 2017, and this is their first ever post to any administrator noticeboard. They've only edited 1 article talk page and 1 other noticeboard. Interesting, I would say. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen.[8] I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

          WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Wikipedia. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia.[9] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Wikipedia and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Wikipedia. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on Saudi Arabia TBAN per discussion with SlimVirgin below; oppose Middle East TBAN per comments by MJL below; oppose a ban on Islam or Muslim topics per my original rationale. 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) edited 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I said at the ANI thread back then, SharabSalam is emotionally invested in the topics they edit on: first Iranian politics, now Saudi Arabia? I have a gut feeling that we're going to end up looking at a t-ban from the entire Middle East. But, per WP:ROPE, this, for the time being. ——Serial ^# 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN, alternatively support Middle East TBAN (or should that be MENA to make the WMF happy?), oppose Islam TBAN. Echoing SN54129 and Boing!, I'm not filled with confidence that even an ME topic ban will be enough of a wakeup call given that they didn't seem to get the message after the IRANPOL TBAN, but ROPE and all that. I also would like to express my disappointment that SharabSalam has been told by multiple editors how their "pro-Saudi trolls" line sounds and yet hasn't even retracted the comment. creffett (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  How to redact that comment when it is already removed. I didnt intent to call any editor Saudi troll. I said that the content that was added was promoted by Saudi bots according to reliable sources. If I knew that I would have been understood that way, I wouldnt have said it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The proposed ban and the ban from Middle East as per this comment [[10] --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can someone post examples of the problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia on enwiki? So far, the only one offered is "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" in response to a proposed poorly sourced edit that arguably undermined Jamal Kashoggi, the Saudi dissident who was assassinated. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that SharabSalam has retired. Looking briefly through his edits, it seems he's an Arab editor with excellent English who understands the sourcing policies, including a good understanding of OR/SYN and the misuse of primary sources. In case I'm wrong about that, or in case it's an incomplete picture, can someone please post some of his problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: On its own I would agree with you. For me, the context I would want you to consider is that this seems to be continuation of the behavior that led to the ban from post-1978 Iranian politics. While those accusations were more direct than the incident you mention, the oblique accusation, Tony's diff from meta (among others), the Saudi Barbaria comment at RSN, and the Iran TBAN collectively make me think that the editor has issues assuming good faith or behaving civilly (i.e., not rude) in this topic area, and that what they learned from the post-1978 Iran TBAN was to make accusations by implication rather than directly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Wugapodes, thanks for the links. I agree that his comments there were unacceptable. The Iran topic ban was placed on 26 April 2020, so the question for me is what he has done since then to trigger a second one. The meta diff is from 2019 and in any event needn't affect enwiki. The Barbaria RSN diff was in January and is arguably fair comment. So we're left with the "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls" comment on 30 May. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, I missed the date of the Iran TBAN. Given that timeline, I would agree a TBAN is not the ideal response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for taking another look. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't want to fully weigh in here, but I have to say that idea we would TBAN SharabSalam for that "Saudi Barbaria" comment would be pantently absurd. (1) The dude is not a native English language speaker and probably has no clue the deeper implications behind call a place barbaric. He didn't even know what "whiny *****" meant.^link (2) He lives in Yemen. You guys know there is an active civil war there, right? It's just a wee bit tense there.. (3) Saudi Arabia has done some pretty awful things, so let's not pretend that a user biased against them is all that surprising.
  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. To TBAN for that one single comment from five months ago, that's pretty absurd.
  I'd also completely oppose a ban on the broad topic of the Middle East. That's like TBANing an English person from the entire topic of Western Europe. That's greatly disproportional to anything I have seen be alleged SharabSalam to have done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. - I've read through Tony's link for meta.wiki and I have a different interpretation. I do not think SharabSalam was targeting Tony's acquaintances, I think it was a general comment. If you combine every allegation SharabSalam made as if they all referred to the same people, yes, it would look bad. But I do not think one is obliged to combine all the allegations. It is one way to look at it, but it is not the only way. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be honest, I thought along very similar lines. I just figured I must've been missing some context or something. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Given Saudi Arabia’s influence in the region, is it even feasible to devise a TBAN from Saudi Arabia but not from the Middle East? P-K3 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The behavior here is very concerning because I don't believe people don't quite understand the implications of what they're saying, and what it could mean or the consequences it could bring to people who live in different countries from the US or UK, especially where religion and customs are held in the highest regard. Please measure your words carefully. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: Considering we have a general sanction regime in place for Iran.. well there you go. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The behavior clearly justifies the proposed TBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SarahSV and MJL. Furthermore, I have stated above, I do not believe the meta.wiki comment was targeted at anyone in particular (of that discussion). Let's also remember that this dispute started with the OP labeling Jamal Khashoggi as a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer". What we should be doing, if SharabSalam ever returns, is to have them clearly state the targets of their criticism every time. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Vanishing

• Note: User:Sotiale (not an admin) moved the user page and talk page of User:SharabSalam. I was able to undo the talk page move, but the user page, not so much. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sotiale is a steward and global renamer. He was obviously doing it on request. You should revert.P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: - I reverted already. starship.paint (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, Sotiale is Korean and doesn’t really edit this project. He had no reason to know that this was in the middle of a sanctions discussion or that the user was already under sanctions. The simple solution is to reverse the vanishing, because you are correct, he isn’t entitled to one while under sanctions or being discussed at a noticeboard. It’s not big deal. These things happen on a global website. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: English Wikipedia is not the center of Wikimedia-sphere and we (S and GRNs) do not need to check for every project/every contribs every time to check stuff before acting on something. Vanish runs on honor systems: we assume good faith and act on bad faiths if found. — regards, Revi 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, let us not only make English Wikipedia more myopic and parochial, but let's do it in the most tortuous way possible. Forgive me for actually reading WP:VANISH, but there it says: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." That unless clause (combined with the 'might not' in the following sentence) tells me this is something you chose to do. That's fine. I am entitled to think you're a bad person for doing so. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He isn't "embroiled in controversy". WP:VANISH is poorly written, but my understanding is: don't do this to wriggle out of trouble temporarily; you do have to intend to leave. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the norm to be declining a vanishing in the middle of a sanctions discussion is that people who vanish in the middle of sanctions discussions usually aren't actually vanishing. They're usually trying to set up for an invalid clean start and will be back. Because of that, the vanishing policy both locally and on meta is traditionally read similar to the en.wiki WP:CLEANSTART policy since despite the wording saying vanishing is not a clean start, they tend to be linked in practice.

It keeps things cleaner if you wait until after it is over, and easier to figure out who is under sanctions and who isn't if they do come back in another incarnation. Basically, I do agree with reversing this, but I think we could have better explained the reasoning behind it besides global policy says so. I think there's a good reason for that norm, but its not intuitive if you don't work in the area.

Basically, my understanding of VANISH is that if you wouldn't otherwise be eligible to clean start, you shouldn't be vanished. There is of course wiggle room and grey areas, but I don't think they really apply here since it isn't a real name account or one with privacy concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: m:Global rename policy is a bit clearer on this saying that in seeking a rename The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. which is another reason turning down requests during sanctions discussions has become more of a normal way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing is done using the rename function, so normally the global rename policy is applied. Like I said, there's also a sometimes spoken sometimes unspoken assumption that rage quits happen, and are more likely to happen when someone is under stress of being discussed at a noticeboard. Eventually a lot of the people who try to vanish when there's controversy come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nihlus, where does meta:Global rename policy say anything that meant this vanishing had to be reversed? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 5) Dumuzid, there is quite a bit in WP:VANISH as well as m:Global rename policy that explains what renaming is not to be used for. The main takeaway though is that the user is a user in good standing and that renaming ... might not be extended to users ... who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned. So yes, this is something that I, in agreement with the original renamer and Tony, chose to do in accordance with policy. I disagree with your need to personally attack me and request that you remove it. Thank you.

  SlimVirgin, the fact that a topic ban is being discussed on AN means a rename would be under controversial circumstances. And this is something that we avoid for obvious reasons, as mentioned in my previous comment. I left more comments on the user's talk page prior to renaming. There is nothing that said it had to be reversed. The original renamer said it was okay to reverse, and two global renamers agreed that it should be reversed. The original request had no mention of privacy concerns, so there wasn't any need to look into it further. Nihlus 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, I am sure you are a wonderful person in your day-to-day life, and probably on Wikipedia as well. I have drawn a conclusion regarding your specific conduct here. Do what you want with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, when this has closed, we should discuss at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing how to avoid this kind of situation in future. The local guideline should apply. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the local policies should and do apply in this situation. If, after this discussion, SharabSalam would like to vanish and is eligible, then I will be happy to process it for him at that time. Nihlus 05:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, there isn't much point in arguing about it in this thread. According to my reading of WP:VANISH, he is eligible. According to yours, he is not. That means there is a problem with the way the guideline is written, and it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Renamer note As a renamer, I can tell you that SharabSalam is probably "under a cloud" and probably should not have been vanished. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reversing the rename/vanishing, while defensible by policy, was a mistake. Nothing is gained by keeping someone here who wants to walk away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter What? WP:IAR and WP:5P5 seem to suggest that's not the case. This just sounds like wikilawyering for a reason to punish someone who wants to leave. Also, if anyone who argues too passionately and discourteously for a topic they care about is now "malicious" under your definition, you might want to go see our "malicious" community trustee that just got a TBAN for similar conduct. Wherever the grey line of bad faith editing is, we're clearly very far away from it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, here's how I view it. Someone wants to vanish, fine, they get to vanish. As long as they're not some prolific vandal or something (and SharabSalam is not, regardless of whether any of us might agree or disagree with him) then let them go. Once. Whatever shit they may happen to be in at that point. "I choose to walk away" should always be an option.

  If they return with an attempted clean start, then they can declare that, and we can look at it case by case. Guy (help!) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with NYB here. I agree this is all within the letter of policy, but I'm saddened that we couldn't just let him go as he apparently wishes. And no, this is someone who has problems with their interactions with others, but I really don't think there's any malicious intent. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am very much of the view that the harder we make it for people to leave with dignity, the more we stoke resentment and invite further abuse. If someone wants to leave, let them. Honestly. This is not some vandal we need to keep track of long term abuse. I've had my run-ins with him but this just makes us look spiteful. Sorry, I know that's harsh, but - well, just let the guy leave. Guy (help!) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
  Regarding the RTV/leaving thing, I'd just let people say what they're going to say. If people want to express their positive opinion of an editor or opine that a certain and specific courtesy should've been shown to them on their way out, then I can't see that doing any harm. At the end of the day, the policy has still been followed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Censoring

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

---

I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace.com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now he is edit warring about it.[18] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
• This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply think you are a problematic editor. Why 2 months would not be recent, and what you see wrong with an unjustified warning on my talkpage being the trigger to investigate your edits, I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Backlog on WP:RFPP

There's a bunch of entries that need looking at, including one I'd tackle myself had I not been edit warring in it (haha)--List of lynching victims in the United States. There's a concerted effort by what appears to be one editor who's IP hopping around to insert a long list of recent black victims of police violence, an effort that is not gaining traction in the history or on the talk page. See the talk page, where they propose a political/OR argument; look also at their edit summaries and comments: you'd never guess there were different IP addresses associated with those edits. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I did that one; will try a couple of others at RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valery Tsepkalo

I need help. The article about Valery Tsepkalo (this is the new Pro-Russian candidate for President of Belarus) is protected from any criticism by two participants: Brigh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Yury.vait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The other day, the media wrote that the article was being cleared of criticism (the publication was about a Russian article, but the participants are the same). Please take the article under review and add it to your watch list. Thanks.--VladMamul (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request review for AlexanderHovanec

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

(User still globally locked, but that's for the stewards on Meta.)

User has an extensive history of declined unblock requests, socking, resocking, and declined UTRS appeals. Not all of them visible to reviewing eyes. Many of those UTRS appeals are no longer available, making it harder to evaluate. Most recently, I declined UTRS 30529 and responded thusly: :

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.

To be unblocked you must address your edit warring and your use of photos. You must agree to 1RR-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules

You must agree to not add images to Wikipedia. If you are unblocked on Commons, you must not upload images there for use on Wikipedia.

You also have created concerns about sourcing, especially on biographies of living persons. You must address your adding of unsourced poorly and unsourced content to Wikipedia.

Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks)

Your account is globally locked. Should you successfully request unblock on en.wiki, you will still need to ask the Stewards-- stewardswikimedia.org.to unlock your account.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

User then responded agreeably to my conditions in UTRS 30600 thusly

I will: - Abstain from reverting edits (edit warring) - Stop uploading pictures on Commons to be used on Wikipedia - Be strict with my sources and abstain from adding irrelevant information - Listen to any instructions given by administrators - Never sock-puppet again (I haven’t sock-puppeted in roughly a year and I’ll continue to not sock-puppet.)

I gave it some time (~24 hours) to await further input and then unblocked, but it was brought to my attention afterward that WP:THREESTRIKES probably applies. (Not immediately obvious in reviewing of talk page.) So I seek confirmation or rejection of my decision to unblock. I don't know how user would reply as globally locked. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request If the unblock is overturned, could someone please indicate on user talk page that he is CBANned with a permalink to this discussion? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reading their talk page and the reasons for blocks (Copyvios, BLP vios, socking, socking and more socking), I don't think I'd trust this user for 5 minutes. Additionally, the previous 2 blocking admins expressed concern which gives me pause; unless they agree I would not support. The global lock seems rather lame (blocked on Commons, blocked on enWiki, flooding UTRS), so I don't put much stock into that. I think I would feel better if a CU could confirm a clean sock record. But before I could support (if ever), I would need a better reason than just agreeing to your terms; they must state how they will do it within the appropriate policies, and then state a convincing understanding of each policy. Their current agreement is most unconvincing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is precisely the problem I have. With previously dealing with this editor, they would frequently say one thing, and then get caught doing the exact opposite elsewhere if you watched his edits. Sometimes with block evading, sometimes with things as simple as agreeing to not make unsourced edits, and then proceeding to make additions to an article without adding a source. And then he’d argue with you at length, about things like this where it was clear as day that he was lying. It makes it very difficult to trust him. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm open to the possibility of him being unblocked with editing restrictions, but I would also like better examples of what he plans to work on and how. As for trusting him, it's difficult. He constructed stories and identities behind several socks, claiming different names, ages, genders, locations, background such as working in various industries and attending different schools, UTRS claims of visiting this friend or that friend and being caught unfairly in sweeps of someone they "never heard of", being sisters, brothers, and everything in between. It was elaborate and calculated and went on for at least a year. I like to believe in giving people a chance and redeeming blocked editors but it's difficult on this one. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's been over two years and he still wants to come back, so maturity should be taken into consideration. I had good interactions with the editor during his time here, and in this case believe that another chance is warranted. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• If I recall right, you didn’t even support his block after he was caught socking countless times... Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect we're being trolled. It takes work to get globally locked, and this guy socked a lot. Why would you want to come back to that reputation? Guy (help!) 20:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve wondered this too. I can only guess it’s because of how frequently he’s caught socking. The editor is prolific at socking, but also prolific at getting caught and blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• He is banned per WP:3X so he'd need a community unban here before he could start editing again, but more importantly the account is globally locked, and I generally do not think we should be unblocking users until they have dealt with the global lock on their account. Reblock locally and tell him to appeal to the stewards. If they unlock (unlikey... locks tend to be hard to get out of) we can discuss then. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Today's AfD list

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel (The Last of Us) is effecting the alignment on todays list, can't quite see it to fix, something with that html block quote code I think. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I think, the big list containing all the blockquotes started with a <ul> tag for an unordered list and then ended with an </ol> tag for an ordered list. Not sure why that particular error ended up causing an indent specifically, but fixing it has made it go away. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Review of the indefinite block of Cesdeva

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

---

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

I have placed an indefinite block on the user Cesdeva. This user is not a new editor: they have edited Wikipedia since June 2013, have more than 2500 edits, and have access to the new page reviewer toolset. Despite their experience, they have deliberately defaced certain Wikipedia articles as a means of protesting the killing of George Floyd on three occasions: first on the Donald Trump article on May 28 [19], next on the United States article on May 28 [20][21][22], and again on the United States article today [23]. When doing this, they use misleading edit summaries, such as "typo", "minor reword", and "wikitext render fix". When asked about these edits, they have defended them: see [24][25][26][27].

On May 28, 2020, they were blocked indefinitely by admin Galobtter (talk · contribs) for this behavior. However, 16 hours later, they were unilaterally unblocked by admin Golbez (talk · contribs), who believed the indefinite block was "premature"—see unblock discussion. Because the user has now continued to vandalize Wikipedia after being unblocked, I have reinstated the block. Because this is a relatively experienced editor, and because a similar block of this user has been reversed by another administrator in the past, I would like to voluntarily list this block for community review here at AN. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think perhaps the first indef was a bit much, perhaps a 48-72 hour block would have sufficed, but still warranted as they were clearly editing to "protest", and if nothing done after that, all well and good. Going right back to what got them blocked however warrants the indef for now. In say a month after emotions have cooled from recent events, I would welcome an unblock from the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Original indef block was fine. AGF unblock was fine. Reblock is fine. Even Cesdeva's outrage is fine (though I question the benefit of his choice of protest). RiB's idea that an unblock in the future would be reasonable is fine. I don't mean "fine" as in that cartoon (that I can't find a link to right now) where everything is actually burning, but an actual non-ironic "fine". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you are, Floquenbeam. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Cesdeva: Oh come on. Many of us are outraged by the Killing of George Floyd. I see no benefit to defacing this encyclopedia as an act of protest. The perpetrators of that outrage are in no way bothered or inconvenienced by your "protests". Please conduct your activism off Wikipedia where it might do some good. When you are again ready to help build the world's largest free-content encyclopedia, please let us know. Feel free to use your time away from WIkipedia engaged in any lawful pursuit you please. In case anyone is wondering, I am fine with Floquenbeam's response above. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Salt their earth. I gave them a chance and they do this? No. Go away. --Golbez (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Cesdeva: Working on the articles that document the abuses is a more effective way to draw attention to the abuses. Your vandalism gets reverted in two seconds and nobody will ever remember it. But an article you help write will be here forever. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• What Floq said. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Immature, ineffective protest. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Emotions are running high right now (see my interchange with another vandalizing editor at User talk:Darcklighting) but there's a limit to how far we should go to allow acting out. Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Per my comments there at the time, the original indef block was fine and the AGF unblock was unwarranted when nothing but bad faith had been expressed. Per today's comment, the user is still rationalizing even while under indef: Let's be honest here i could have done far worse like running AWB spam scripts or replacing templates that fall short of TE protection. Your honor, I could have done so much worse and didn't. Stellar block. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unusual case of WP:CIR. Indef block was required. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• As much as I approve of vandalizing articles about Trump, it doesn't help. Here is a list of articles that can be brought up to GA and expanded in support of George Floyd and as a fuck you to America's woefully racist system. Praxidicae (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I fear if I roll my eyes any harder at your absurdly irrelevant comment, they may actually get stuck. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand the desire to prematurely bring these matters to AN. If these blocks and unblocks are so controversial, then they will naturally find their way here. Further, I do not find the block or reblock to to be out of line; however, I do find the unblock by Golbez to be questionable, as it shows a lack of familiarity with what "indef" means and how it is used, despite their comments saying otherwise. Their haughty comment about being here longer than Mandruss is quite unnecessary as well. Nihlus 23:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, I think it was brought to AN preemptively to avoid concerns of wheel-warring (which is an absolute no-no). creffett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Per Praxidicae and Levivich. There are right ways and wrong ways to protest on Wikipedia. Defacing articles makes us look immature. Expanding articles and working to right our well-documented systemic bias helps everybody. Good block. creffett (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support re-indef. A long-established user who starts vandalising should quickly be indefinitely blocked: either the user's gone rogue and knows better (and won't stop voluntarily) or the account's been compromised. And if there's reason to believe that the account hasn't been compromised, the indef should stay unless there's a convincing argument that it isn't helpful. No complaints about the unblock — on principle it's fine to lift such a block if the user is convincing — but when you get blocked for cause, you say that you won't repeat it, and you go right back to what got you blocked, it's entirely appropriate to restore the block with at least as strong of settings as before. Maybe a 24-hour block could be reimposed as 48-hours, and while you can't get longer than indefinite, you can bring it here to ensure that it may not be lifted without a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait; this is just a block review. I really, really disagree with the idea that if we support this block now, it somehow becomes a de facto community ban, and there has to be another discussion here with a consensus before they are unblocked even if there's a legit unblock request. Is this how others are reading this discussion too? This has been a constructive editor for seven years who is upset. In a month, I'm 100% confident they can be safely unblocked with a legit unblock request. If this is truly how we're handling this these days, then I'll switch to Oppose, not as a criticism of Mz7's block, but to prevent an unnecessary escalation on our part. The difference between a 24 hur block and an indef block suddenly becomes way more stark, and indef suddenly becomes unreasonable. I will certainly never bring one of my blocks here for review if it means turning them into de facto community bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    Floquenbeam, this is my concern as well when it comes to prematurely bringing these blocks to AN. I don't think wheel-warring, as creffett mentions, is a valid reason for doing so either. Nihlus 02:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nyttend: you say that you won't repeat it - He didn't say that. He said he was done for the night. Everything else he said was in defense of his righteous vandalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block per Cullen--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but would prefer change to duration to 1-3 months, as I see no point in bothering AN with the unblock request once everything's cooled down. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously there is a consensus supporting the reblock. However, per Floquenbeam, this discussion does not convert the ordinary indefblock to a community ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Indef block until a convincing unblock request comes forward. Azuredivay (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• In case there was any doubt, from my prior comment, I endorse the indef block' This is not a CBAN and user can be unblocked if he can convince an admin it is not unwise to do so. I also endorse subsequent removal of TPA. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC on adding edit filter to Facebook links

There is currently a RfC on the Reliable sources noticeboard about whether Facebook links should be a subject to an edit filter, and/or be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. Your comments would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Perjanik

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

---

An admin has redacted all revisions of the Mike Perjanik article that existed between 2010 and 2018, therefore making the progresion of this article invisible. This is censorship and should be stopped. Southern Lights (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Southern Lights: No, it was deleted as a copyright violation. You might want to contact the admin in question, Moneytrees (talk · contribs), directly if you disagree. Regards SoWhy 07:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there was mass censorship of historical revisions by User:Moneytrees. The edits need to be reinstated rigth now. Southern Lights (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate DRV

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

---

• A DRV [[28] is open pertaining a redirect page named Derek Chauvin -- [29]. Yes, it's true, a redirect page.

• Contrary to the OP's opening statement which says they created the Derek Chauvin article [30] it was and is a redirect to the George Floyd article [31].
• The redirect is currently protected due to edit warring, [32] and the OP reverted a couple time themselves [33], [34], among a flurry of edits by three or four editors until it was protected.

• I posted a summation at the DRV which will save time and space if I don't repeat it here [35]. I think the essential point is': "The intended result [of the DRV] is to indirectly undo a decision by an admin to protect the [redirect]. Rather than go to the admin or an admin board the OP opens a DRV...I think this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN, and not DRV. It's just not making sense." I copy edited that post with three subsequent edits (I think).

So I am requesting independent Admin eyes to take a look at the situation. And I'm not pointing fingers. I am just hoping someone closes the DRV as inappropriate, and that is not for me to decide. I may not be seeing something correctly. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering that people are using the AfD result a justification to again turn it into a redirect and protect it in that state, a DRV seems a fair process to address this. And turning a redirect into a full article is basically the same as creating an article, so no idea why you bring up that issue as if that has any bearing on this. You state that the redirect is protected due to edit warring, which is true, but you leave out the remainder of the edit summary for the protection: "see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer)". At the moment, this belongs at DRV and can and should be handled there. Fram (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• This was the action of an administrator using one of his admin-only powers, concerning the existence of a standalone page, who took the action in part based on an AFD discussion and explicitly cited it. Why on earth would it not be in scope for DRV? —Cryptic 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• In response to the above. I was thinking that creating an article from a redirect was not the same as starting from scratch. My mistake. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Fram: and @Cryptic: As you both said, the second part of the rationale for the hardened redirect pointed to the AfD. For some reason I hadn't noticed that when I posted here. After your feedback, I could also see there was some merit for leaving it at DRV. But, I decided to leave my AN report as it is to see how things would turn out. Anyway, this will be helpful to me going forward. So, your feedback is much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

George Floyd film career allegations

There's a rumor on the internet that George Floyd appeared in an adult film. This is being reported on some websites (including porn websites), but AFAIK, not in any actual RSes. I don't think we're anywhere near the level of RS coverage where we would even consider including this content, though I could be wrong about that. Editors have been adding this content to the various Floyd articles, and talk pages. It's been a bunch of different editors, but almost all new accounts or IPs. The articles themselves have been semiprotected, which has more or less stopped the addition of this content in mainspace. However, on talk pages like Talk:George Floyd and Talk:Killing of George Floyd, IPs and new editors are repeatedly making edit requests or otherwise raising the issue, sometimes not linking to any sources, other times linking to substandard sources (blogs) or really inappropriate sources (porn websites). My question is: can/should anything be done? First, should these talk page discussions be deleted, closed, or archived? (There is some mild edit warring, with some editors deleting these sections outright, and others restoring them.) Should the talk pages be protected? Should an edit filter be used? Should we just let it be? What is the protocol? Thanks in advance, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Per BLPTALK, at least one section where some discussion that explains why the information won't be included due to lack of RS, should probably be kept, closed, and then, if needed linked to via a talk page FAQ, so that if a new editor comes by to ask/add the same, the information or new talk page section can be removed and you can point to the FAQ/archived thread as to why instead of having to explain over and over again. I don't know why that information is even relevant (what info is specific to him on George Floyd can be summarized on the event page, making extraeous details like that even if sourcable not needed, per BLP) so just establishing the consensus against it once and being able to point to it should be sufficient to revert all future attempts to add or talk about it. --Masem (t) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess the one section is Talk:George Floyd#George Floyd a film actor, and El C dropped an admin note there laying out a protocol. Thanks, C! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, Levivich. Yes, my evaluation of the (unsourced or poorly-sourced) film career mention and its prohibition therefrom, applies across the wiki. El_C 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles giving religious doctrine from primary sources

User:Oct13 has created several articles giving Catholic doctrine, entirely (or almost entirely) using primary Church sources. One such article Church Fathers and abortion, which was a POV fork of Catholic Church and abortion, went through AfD and was deleted 3 months ago. But there are others: Holy obedience, Miraculous plague cure of 1522, Christian Socioeconomics, Hell in Catholicism, and Catholic theodicy. The last two, created last Sunday, seem to be POV forks of Problem of Hell and Existence of God, respectively. How should this be handled? Bring each one individually to AfD? Or speedy AfD? Should User:Oct13 be asked to stop doing this? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. If the articles aren't up to standards, please delete them. I was actually thinking of making an article about Forgiveness in Christianity, but would it be allowed? Oct13 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oct13: To clarify, I'm referring to two issues. First, your sources in several of the articles you created are almost entirely primary sources that you combine to create an interpretation (please read WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:OR). Second, instead of, for example, expanding the coverage of Catholic views on Hell in the main article Problem of Hell and interacting with other editors on the talk page of that article, you created a separate article on your own in which you synthesized the official statements of the Church without any perspective from secondary sources (which could be by Catholics or non-Catholics). There could possibly be good reasons to create a separate article titled "Hell in Catholicism" if there is enough discussion and debate in secondary sources and if an adequate treatment of the topic in the main article Problem of Hell would be unwieldy. But my point is that a separate article needs to be compliant with policies regarding excessive use of primary sources, original research, and POV forks. Note that the deletion process WP:AFD normally takes at least 7 days and involves an investment of time by many editors. It's not a good idea to keep creating articles that are likely to be deleted, since that wastes people's time. NightHeron (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity! My main issue with problem two is that I have trouble finding non-primary sources for Catholic teachings that aren't self-published Catholic sites.Oct13 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case you don't have adequate sourcing for an article on the subject. For example, concerning Hell in Catholicism, before creating an article based on primary sources you might have looked at several Wikipedia articles that already have material on the subject, and then interacted with other editors on the talk-pages to perhaps add material to those sections. See Christian views on Hell#Roman Catholicism, Christian views on Hades#Roman Catholic, Problem of Hell#Christianity, and Hell#Christianity. The same applies to other topics on which you've written articles based on primary sources. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that those article sections cite secondary sources. Since religious studies is a large field of scholarship, it should be possible to find secondary sources for any important notion in the history of theology (Hell, existence of God, forgiveness, etc.). NightHeron (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed a large addition [36] by Oct13 from The Bible and violence with similar problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Miko2020

• Miko2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As if adding OR to articles wasn't bad enough, Miko2020 has decided to slowly but surely take it to the next level with personal attacks, escalating from this (see edit summary), this (see comment) to this and culminating with this comment left on my talk page.

Here's a quick look at some of the edits of the user who's attacking me and accusing me of vandalism:

• Tajine. [37] Unjustified sourced content removal.

• Couscous. [38] This speaks for itself and was reverted by another editor.

• M'semen. [39] Same as above.

• Ras el hanout. [40] Same as above.

• Baghrir. [41] OR reverted by myself.

• Maghrebi mint tea. [42] Unjustified change and a personal attack to boot.

• Kaftan.[43] Sourced content removal, addition of factually incorrect OR and content based on a misrepresented source, which I explained on the talk page. Instead of addressing what I said, they created an article that they filled with OR and introduced the same misrepresented source. You could be forgiven for thinking that they are new and maybe don't know about WP:VERIFY, but this edit of theirs on another article leaves no doubt that they do.

In fact, their edits are almost undistinguishable from that of another editor (Jamaru25) whose edits consist mainly of adding OR, misrepresenting sources and even using fictitious sources. While I don't mind cleaning up the disruptive edits, unwarranted personal attacks such as this are not something that I'm willing to tolerate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Miko2020 left a message on my talk page complaining, falsely, that M.Bitton had been replacing Morocco with Algeria. I looked at a couple of the articles Miko2020 mentioned to me and saw that, on the contrary, there were cases where Miko was removing references to Algeria and Tunisia so that only Morocco remained, or else was replacing North Africa with Morocco. In a case where I'd reverted one of Miko2020's edits, I was restoring Tunisia and Algeria based on sourced information. Largoplazo (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

user Sms2sms

The Sms2sms (talk · contribs) is only active in the English Wikipedia to continue the conflict of the deWP on discussion pages. See his contributions (German)-131.117.153.103 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• They had been using their enwiki page to talk to the .de administrator that blocked them, but on 26 April posted that any further discussion should be on their meta page (since when there has been no activity) so I don't think there's anything to do here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction warning on the talk page of new editors should be considered as WP:BITE

If a new editor, who did not receive any warning for disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, edit warring, adding contentious unsourced content and vandalism, then giving them Discretionary sanctions alert on first day is biting the new editor.

This should not be done on first day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&oldid=951918392

The editor has not edited since then.

It's like RegentsPark identifying a potential opponent and scaring them off.

User:Slatersteven and User:SerChevalerie interacted with the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.247.116 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a no-fault alert that aims at informing users of the discretionary sanctions regime. El_C 06:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

^^^Thus spake El_C: arguably, too, alerts are even more important for new users as, while an established editor might be assumed to not need reminding of the restrictions (yet still is), a new editor will have no idea. By not advising them of the sanctions in place, in fact, you're making it more likely that they'll be breached. Which results, possibly, in an even less friendly welcome for the new editor. ——Serial ^# 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How are we defining "new" exactly? I suggest 2–3 years. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss}

] 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest 6 years, 7 months and 25 days... at least. ——Serial ^# 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

↑What they said. It's a lot better to issue a neutral "you're dealing with a topic where the usual rules don't apply, if you're not confident that you understand all the rules around NPOV, sourcing, and inter-editor interaction, we suggest you start off in a less contentious area" warning from the outset. The alternative is that someone in good faith tries to add something they read on the internet about homeopathy/climate change/gun control, or thinks in good faith that they're improving Wikipedia by adding/removing an infobox on every page, and promptly gets themselves blocked. I do agree that the wording of the templates is incomprehensible and intimidating, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative; that big gobbet of Bradspeak is unfortunately necessary if we're to convey precisely what "discretionary sanctions" does and doesn't mean. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's less bitey than the alternative, which is a rapid move to blocking. Guy (help!) 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich Don't go for the heading only. The editor in question was one day account only. What harm would happen if the sanction alert is given after one week of non-disruptive editing? What did I say? Don't warn them ever? Warning should be given if they show signs of disruptive editing at the beginning. You gave them welcome message, then even before they have finished reading the welcome message properly, you give them sanction alert. Within one second he will read the links mentioned in welcome message? What is he going to read first? Discretionary sanction alert or welcome message? Welcome message given at 16:04, sanction alert given at 16:05. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&action=history Can't you people have some patience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.218.253 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

With edits that are likely to blow up into a war? No. Guy (help!) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I often DS template new editors. But, I always preface with a welcome if one doesn’t exist. As the welcome says their contributions are welcome and we hope they stay, it further softens the warning. Experienced editors are regularly sanctioned on DS articles. If they run into difficulties; new editors need some sort of heads-up that they’ve jumped into the deep end. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The very first thing the box says is "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It absolutely, positively identifies itself as not a scolding. It's an alert to someone who's entered a particularly fraught topic, that's all. It's like worrying that someone is going to be scared off of driving at all by a "one-way" sign at the beginning of the one-way street, and asking what harm could come from placing it where it won't be visible until a driver has already covered the first 100 meters of the one-way section the wrong way. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The notification is neutrally worded and contains information that any editor, new or old, wading into the topic should be aware of and I don't see this as a problem. In particular, it would be wrong not to let someone wading into that particular controversial article that their edits will receive extra scrutiny. I'm sorry that the editor chose to not return but it doesn't follow that they should have been kept in the dark about the sanctions. Technically, it is not correct that they dropped out after the warning because they appear to have made two edits before the warning (and the welcome!) and two edits after.--regentspark (comment) 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming that you're talking about User:Zubisko I think you've misread the edit history. There were 3 edits before the alert, and 1 after. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're right. I guess I misread the time. Probably not important anyway since it is likely that they either saw the notice after their last edit or have never actually seen it.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's bitey in that it's a huge warning with incomprehensible text. Only someone who is already familiar with how Wikipedia works can even figure out what it's warning you about. I want to point out that the linked page WP:ACDS is completely unintelligible to a newbie, and that both of the terms "discretionary" and "sanction" just seem like arcane legalese. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I strongly disagree. It's not a warning. It's explicitly says it's not a warning. It's unfortunate that some people interpret it that way, but there's no real way we can avoid that. So the idea we should wait for misbehaviour goes completely against the purposes of alerts which is not to warn but to alert. This doesn't mean we should give alerts for every editor who makes one edit, IMO this generally isn't necessary although it will also depend on the topic. But you should guide yourself mostly by "is this editor editing enough in the area that they probably need to know?"

Which gets into my next point, new or old, editors need to take care when editing DS areas. In fact, DS areas tend to have admins more sensitive to problems even without using the DS process. In other words, behaviour which may earn at worst, strong rebuke may earn a block if it's happening in a DS area even if it's not through the DS process. It's good for editors to know quickly that they need to take special care, consider carefully what they are doing, listen, read our policies and guidelines, seek advice and be far less bold then we normally encourage editors to be.

Also, in some areas we get a lot of SPAs, or worse socks. While there are measures which could be put in place for specific articles e.g. long term ECP or even long term semi protection to reduce problems, these can be controversial themselves and they can't be applied to all articles. To give one specific example, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design. While okay, ECP could probably be applied to the article, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it to the talk page. But there are a lot of SPAs who keep popping up. Often these don't last very long. Giving them alerts quickly ensures that they are aware they need to take special care, and also that if necessary, they can be restricted quickly. AFAIK that hasn't even happened yet (there have been some blocks, but not under DS). Note that while me and others have alerted some of the editors, others haven't been alerted yet have disappeared, so I don't think there is even compelling evidence that they are being scared off. Frankly, in this particular case, I'm not sure if it's even harmful to scare off an editor who seems to only be here to push for or against the theories of some random person with a high IQ. To be clear, if these editors would be welcome to branch out into other areas, but most of them have only done a small amount in other areas, and even there it's often highly related.

Note that as I've said before, personally I greatly prefer it when editors alert someone who is on their "side" (for lack of a better word) because as I said, we can't stop people misinterpreting it as a warning so it's better if it's someone who may come across as "look I agree with you, but you need to take care when editing this area". However for a new editor it may not be so obvious anyway, plus I'd still prefer someone to alert. So provided editors are consistent in when they alert, I don't see any harm.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I also disagree strongly. (1) As noted above, the alert notification is neutrally worded. (2) Not allowing newbies to be alerted, while continuing to alert other editors, puts the newbies in a unwarranted protected class. (3) Further, if the newbie has been misbehaving ina DS area, and continues to misbehave, admins would not be able to impose DS sanctions on them because they had not been alerted.
  In my opinion, the proposal is ridiculous on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Let's face it: many articles under discretionary sanctions are haunted by WP:SOCKS. A sock will pretend to quit because an editor threatened him/her with discretionary sanctions, but in fact it is a circus acts merely done as trolling. Everyone who has access to a botnet could create lots of usernames in order to accuse an established editor of WP:BITE and harassment. If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick. Yup, botnet access is for sale on the dark web. Being honest means that the rules of the game are spelled out in advance. I do not see how hiding the knowledge of those rules from newbies would help them. E.g. a creationist POV-pusher, who only comes to Wikipedia in order to spew out creationist memes, will pretend that he/she did not know that that's against policies and guidelines. Someone has to tell them as it is: not in an offensive way, but in a clear and honest way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether they support or oppose, but let other participants in this thread see this comment by Tgeorgescu, "If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick." There are many editors who can give discretionary sanction alert. User:Tgeorgescu is saying that the new user was able to control who will post welcome message and discretionary snaction alert on his talk page. Socks can create new accounts, but you are saying that the editor wanted to trap RegentsPark, by editing when he was online. This is like you belive in fortune teller, soothsayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.228.164 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am agnostic about whether it was the case for RegentsPark, but, yes, it would be easy for socks to game the system if such restriction upon placing notifications of discretionary sanctions would be enforced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu I don't support full restriction. I am suggesting that the new editor should show at least one trait of disruptive editing. If you are not happy with that, then give some time(more than one second) to the new editor to read the welcome message properly and then give sanction alert. 42.110.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I give them to new editors who make good edits as well. I try to be impartial and prefer not to even know the content of their edits, although sometimes it's blazingly obvious. I also think that it would be in a sense unfair not to alert people asap, it might help them avoid ever making bad edits and perhaps gaining a bad reputation. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC close review, please?

A few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Looks like a well-thought-out, detailed and comprehensive close. El_C 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse close, as neutral who took no part in the RfC. A well thought-out, nuanced close of a pretty obfuscating discussion. ——Serial ^# 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A masterpiece. You closed the discussion with the only possible result, and you gave some helpful hints for next steps from a neutral third party. You may take the rest of the day off if you like. Guy (help!) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. "No consensus" is the only possible result there, and those uninvolved helpful suggestions are above and beyond the call of duty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ENGAGE issues

Typically we have responded to WP:ENGAGE problems by blocking until the user begins to engage on their User talk page. Given that we now have partial blocks, I wonder if we should adopt a recommended practice of partial blocking from main space in such cases? I have it in mind that this could become a templated response with the aim of being less bitey than a full block, especially because it allows them to do the exact thing we want them to do, which is to discuss their changes on article talk pages. Guy (help!) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already been doing that. It is a sound approach that minimizes damage to the editor in question, leaving avenues of communication and dispute resolution more open-ended. El_C 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds like a good approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Sounds like a good idea to me. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, absolutely agree. Glen 18:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good to this non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-harassment RfC open

The Arbitration Committee has opened the anti-harassment RfC, and invites discussion from interested editors. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Anti-harassment RfC open

The RfC is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Evelynkwapong539

This user has been making edits about Looney Tunes Cartoons, but has had a really rude attitude in their edit history when it comes people who disagree with their edits. I just want this user to understand that it's really not cool to have this attitude. c 14;51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs. El_C 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_%28season_1%29&type=revision&diff=960970798&oldid=960970723 , title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boo!_AppeTweet&diff=prev&oldid=960973304 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=960601738 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=959726277

Hope this is enough Noelephant 15;01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noelephant: There's now a report at WP:AN/EW over this, so if you wish to comment there... There's also a discussion on the relevant article talk page, which is the best bet to resolve this without any further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Will do, I'm just going to let this settle, was really not trying to edit war but I can see where it can be assumed as such, thanks again. Noelephant 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Evelynkwapong539 was not informed of this report, Noelephant. I have done this for you. I did, however, issue a warning to them to remain civil. El_C 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Restore page and allow all editors to edit while AFD is ongoing

Any chance an admin could restore Derek Chauvin to this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Chauvin&oldid=960677089 . Also, could you remove the edit protection? I think it will make the AFD more objective and allow editors (who are interested) to work on the article. No evidence of behavior problems here, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Casprings, that version has a speedy tag on it, so probably not the best? My suggestion is to leave it as-is, per WP:BLP, and link to an old version in the AfD so people can read it. Just my $0.02. Guy (help!) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Get help drafting RFCs

The "regulars" at WT:RFC have been talking about some common problems we see in RFCs, and we are going to try a bit of an experiment this month. This month, you can ask for help with writing your RFC question at WT:RFC.

This is not required, but it may be helpful. If you are all lucky, then having us provide a little experienced advice may reduce the number of RFCs that get mentioned here. I particularly recommend this when:

• a group of editors is already in conflict or someone is saying that a proposed RFC question isn't 'neutral' enough,
• you're starting a "major" RFC (e.g., significant changes to a policy or to a contentious article), and
• someone wants to hold a vote on what the wording of a sentence should be.

Feel free to refer any and all new/future RFCs our direction. If editors want this service, then we may make it permanent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This certainly looks like an excellent idea, as long as the people giving the help are better placed than the people asking for it in terms of neutrality, and knowledge of Wikipedia processes. Many RFCs don't get past one of the first hurdles of having a neutrally worded question. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

SNOW close of AfD with significant social-media driven new user participation

Hi all. I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman as keep per WP:SNOW. The AfD received significant participation on both sides from new users that were unfamiliar with the AfD process and made non-policy driven arguments, and a portion of those were sockpuppet accounts. Additionally, there was a moderate amount of interpersonal sniping. Since there was already an overwhelmingly clear consensus, and the possibility of further disruption was high, I performed the non-admin closure. I am inviting administrators to review the closure and undo it if it is deemed necessary. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who initially only wanted to fix an incomplete AfD but then stumbled into an apparent hornets nest after posting a comment weakly supporting deletion, let me give you my summary. At face value, the article looks too much like a WP:RESUME to not be cautious: an aspiring academic and semi-public figure looking to increase their profile with some WP:SELFPROMO, like we had plenty over the years. The article is full of puffery and academic credentials that are nowhere to be found except on self-published blog posts or interviews. The only two relevant third-party sources were, in my mind, an article by the Wall Street Journal, and another by the New York Times, both of which mention Opoku-Agyeman in passing while broadly discussing race and gender inequality in the economics discipline. In my opinion that wasn't enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC, but then others pointed out the notability of the subject due to her more recent hashtag activism (which in itself already led to the article Black Birders Week), which is certainly a valid point given that we do have biographical articles of such activist, like Isis Anchalee or Ayakha Melithafa.

Anyhow, while the above could certainly explain some disagreement like in any "normal" AfD, there's apparently a more questionable backstory to it. The article in question was created on June 5 after the subject implicitly asked her 8,000+ Twitter followers to do so the previous night, and one Wikipedian among them obliged. The next day the article was nominated for deletion by another Wikipedian using their sock-puppet account, apparently out of fear of being subjected to some form of online harassment if done under their actual account. That in itself is worrisome, but was seemingly a correct prediction since shortly after the AfD started the subject again took to her Twitter about it, claiming to be the victim of some sort of racially biased conspiracy, and essentially sent her followers over here to WP:MEATPUPPET the discussion. That explains the flood of template-style comments on the AfD, along the lines of "Hi, I haven't been using my Wikipedia account for years, but I'm just here to confirm that subject is notable." Unfortunately it also led to overzealous editors like Nfitz completely derailing any calm discussion by crying racism and comparing the AfD to people being killed in the streets.

And so here we are. I support The Squirrel Conspiracy's decision to close this AfD, since it was inching towards Godwin's law by the minute. On a broader perspective, though, I wonder if this is the new normal on Wikipedia: incite your social media followers to WP:SELFPROMO by proxy, then rile them up with conspiracy claims to protect your personal vanity. This is not a hypothetical, since exactly the same happened last night at AfD/Corina Newsome and AfD/Earyn McGee, where the subjects actively solicited WP:MEATPUPPETS via their Twitter; both articles were speedy-kept by creffett amidst the chaos. But is this the new normal? In my 15+ years at Wikipedia I have never seen anything like this, and quite frankly last night I didn't know what else to do but to ask for help on WP:3RD, and even inquiring about the possibility of semi-protection for the AfD to stop the deluge of WP:SPA. In the end, I don't care about this one article in particular, but about the whole process we Wikipedians established over the better part of the last two decades. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

+1. I think a new AfD needs to be started, overseen by an administrator to weed out meat puppets who haven't edited outside the AfD or are coming out of woodworks to participate in the AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This was a whole "thing" yesterday evening. The filer also filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee, both of which I speedy-kept last night (no rationale, appeared to be vexatious nominations, no delete !votes), but I did not close this one because there appeared to be a good-faith delete !vote, though I did semi-protect it. My observations:

• The two that I closed were clearly the subjects of canvassing, presumably via Twitter as bender235 linked above.
• The one I did not close was also clearly the subject of canvassing, but this time on both sides - several new accounts showed up to !vote delete in that one in addition to the aforementioned keep !voters. I opted to semi-protect the AfD to deal with the influx of canvassed voters, and if that was wrong I will take my lashings for it, but it seemed to be the most effective solution at the time.
  • There also appears to have been some on-wiki notification of this discussion which brought a lot of experienced editors: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Gifty_Opoku-Agyeman. I take no stance right now on whether or not that notification was appropriate.
• I find it odd that so many people cited WP:BASIC - I'm not a regular at AfD, but I'd never seen that cited before (usually people cite GNG). I assume a lot of it was someone citing BASIC early on and later !voters following it, but still a little weird to me.

creffett (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)