Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316

How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident?

Note: I am not asking for any sanctions against anyone involved. I am asking that we think about what went all wrong here, and how we can avoid this in the future.

On 8 December, User:Ponni Concessao created Ponni Concessao. User:CAPTAIN RAJU gave some good advice / warnings on their user talk page, no issue there as far as I can see.

45 Minutes after creation, User:RHaworth tagged the page for A7 speedy deletion: [1]. That page had some issues (autobio with some promotional issues), but was not an A7 at all (some good sources liek The Hindu, some at first glance important awards like the "Berg Women Icon of Asia").

Despite this, it was deleted minutes later by User:Bbb23 as an A7 and as a G11 (which is incorrect as well: an autobio is not an automatic G11, and the page was far from the promotional drivel usually deleted as G11).

On the 17th, a "new" editor, User:Velanatti, created the page again. User:Nnadigoodluck tagged it some hours later as a G11, and Rhaworth deleted it as such. The page still was a mostly factual description of her life and work, with some peacock terms.

I then went to User talk:RHaworth to ask for a refund to draft space: they sent the page to me through email, stating "The article screams CoI at me and I have not received a reply to this question about possible sock puppetry. I have emailed the text to all three of you. If one of you restores it to draft space, I shall take no action". COI is not a speedy deletion reason, and sa I replied to Rhaworth, I was not allowed to restore the article from his emailed version, as that would lose the attribution. Rhaworth then restored the page to draftspace, which is good.

However, as they restored it with the G11 speedy template still in place, it was yet again deleted as a G11 ten minutes later by User:Jimfbleak. Why someone would speedy delete a new draft for being slightly promotional is not clear, I thought we had draftspace to note and solve such problems?

Meanwhile, Velanatti went to the Teahouse to ask for some guidance: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Ponni Concessao. As a response to that, Bbb23 checkuser blocked both User:Ponni Concessao and User:Velanatti (two other editors at the teahouse were helpful, thanks!). Now, these two are obviously the same, but the first one started and stopped editing on 8 December, without any blocks or sanctions, and the second one started editing the 17th. Why then both editors should be indef checkuserblocked is not clear, there was no block evasion, no votestacking, ... And not a single effort had been made to educate the newbie about what they did wrong and why having a new account might be a bad idea.

I asked at User talk:Bbb23#Query re checkuserblock whether there was anything I missed, because otherwise the block seemed baffling. In the meantime, at User talk:Velanatti they asked for an unblock which was denied by User:Yamla but then granted by Rhaworth; Bbb23 then promptly went to User talk:RHaworth#User:Velanatti to threaten them with desysopping for overturning their checkuserblock, and demanding that they reblock; meanwhile, they continue editing but haven't replied to my question about that block.

TLDR: a COI editor creates a page about a notable person, which is factual but obvious newbie material and slightly spammy / promotional. The page gets incorrectly tagged and deleted multiple times, the editor gets a very heavy-handed checkuserblock, admins are overruling one another, ignoring policies or using them as sledgehammers... Instead, we should have educated the editor (which some people did, but which got trampled by the other actions), improved the article (and/or moved it to draftspace), and ended up with a decent article, perhaps a new editor (many editors start as COI editors and end up as regular ones), no admin actions, no bad blood between admins, and no too long AN section. Fram (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, we don't undo checkuser blocks as there is probably more involved than can be discussed openly. And reading between the lines, there is probably more involved than meets the eye.-- Deepfriedokra 14:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

When one restores a deleted page, one should remove the CSD tag before someone else deletes it again.-- Deepfriedokra 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

And one should check the history and the logs to see whether this was previously deleted and restored before deleting. Regards SoWhy 14:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is overblown. Apparently, because I haven't responded immediately to Fram's concerns, we end up here. Whether the user should be unblocked is an issue that should be dealt with in the normal way. Personally, I'm not convinced that they should, but I'm willing to listen. However, undoing a CU block, which has not happened to me before, is a very serious matter. I didn't "threaten" RHaworth. I simply wanted him to undo his unblock and pointed out to him the consequences of his actions. Frankly, I'm very surprised that an administrator of his experience should not know that what he did was wrong. And, as I stated, even if it had been a normal block, he didn't consult with me or even give me a heads up. He just unblocked. In my view, Fram's bringing this here makes it worse for RHaworth as this is a more public venue than his Talk page, and I was giving him a chance to rectify his error.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not here for that one aspect, I'm here because this went from one low to another. But as for your role, you had the time to immediately jump on Rhaworth to demand reblocking (fine), but not to explain the actual merits of that same block? It's not as if some extreme vandal or abuser was unblocked, was it? Now that you are here, can you perhaps answer whether there is anything more to the block than a newbie who made a second account, without doing anything problematic (I mean, they went to the Teahouse asking about the deletions, so it's not as if they did all they could to hide the connection). Were there other accounts already blocked which warrented this CU block? Fram (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I spend a lot of time patrolling the requests for unblock. On my user page, I state, "If you come across a block placed by a third admin which I have already declined but which you feel should be lifted, please do not feel constrained against lifting the unblock on my account. I may be more conservative at unblocking than you are. I would not consider this wheel-warring." Although it is only a small part of the concern being raised here, I don't object to RHaworth overturning my decision to leave the block in place. Note that I've previously inappropriately lifted a checkuser block and been appropriately told off for doing so (quite possibly by Bbb23, though I can't recall for sure). Note that I suspect the article at the root of the problem is a case of WP:AUTOBIO, though it could just be WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Draftify is kinder than nuke for cases like this. Guy (help!) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I know that Fram was not seeking sanctions against anyone, but I do have concerns about RHaworth's knowledge of policy. RHaworth's conduct has led to several ANI threads (see here, here and here), mainly due to his alleged indiscriminate speedy deletions and brusque replies to newbies on his user talk page, although I think he has tried to improve in this regard and it's somewhat ironic that he's now here partly because he undeleted a page in an attempt to help a newbie. For a longstanding admin he does appear to lack basic understanding of how things work. I recall that a few months ago he appeared to have no idea what Oversight was and directed a user query regarding it to the Bureaucrats Noticeboard) and now he is overturning a checkuser block unilaterally? How can he be unaware that this is forbidden by policy?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding, concerns about RHaworth's knowledge of policy, is it knowledge, or willful disregard? To be fair, he does a huge amount of work. It's possible his error rate is no worse than mine, but since he does 10x the volume, he makes 10x the errors, so his name shows up 10x more often at DRV, ANI, etc. Still, if that's the case, I'd rather see him slow down and put more consideraion into each action. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What you just said has been said before at these boards. Given RHaworth's comment at Velanatti's Talk page (and the fact that he didn't even consult with me before unblocking even had it been a normal block), I lean toward "willful disregard" and rogue-like behavior. I think he does pretty much what he wants.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to say "neither knowledge, nor willful disregard" - but seriously reckless. As has been said before, it's not the borderline cases that are the issue - RHaworth's scale of work is so big to make that pool large without being problematic. But the multiple ANIs on other cases are a sign that he acts without a pause on some clearcut problematic ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of admin actions and willful disregard, per WP:ADMINACCT, Bbb23, do you plan on answering questions about the CU block or not? Not about the fact that the two accounts are one and the same editor, that was obvious without a CU when you had access to the deleted article: but about why they deserved to be both insta-indef-blocked for what were arguably good faith newbie mistakes? Fram (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I know you have an agenda here, defending the poor downtrodden newbies from the cruelty of administrators, but I'll play along a bit and then willfully ignore you if I can. This came to my attention when an editor pinged me to this discussion at the Teahouse. Ironically, RHaworth asked Velanatti what the relationship was between Velanatti and Ponni Concessao, which once I looked at the two accounts' behavior was a reasonable question. Velanatti never responded, and, AFAIK, never disclosed the earlier account until they requested an unblock. Given there was ample evidence to run a check, I did so. Contrary to your assertion, nothing is guaranteed in the world of socks, so there was a possibility that the two accounts were not related. I've seen this many times - and I think I know a smidgen more than you do about socks - and without a clear technical connection, I would not have blocked. Finally, the fact that the accounts did not overlap timewise and that the earlier account wasn't blocked does not prevent a block for socking. The fact that both accounts were promoting the same person without disclosing that they were the same person is sufficient abuse to justify a block. Any defense by the individual can be addressed in a post-block discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If that's been Fram's agenda this entire time, then I think I seriously regret not voting in his last RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Bbb23, what is the problem with that agenda you perceive? It looks like at least some people agree that not everything in this whole situation was really up to the standards we may achieve from admins. Not only your block, but the taggings and deletions as well, and the unblock of a CU block. Apparently Adminacct is some unreasonable burden for you? As is warning people, educating them about what is allowed and what isn't? Or not deleting articles for A7 when they have clear claims to notability? Because that's also an admin action you took which was very dubious. " The fact that both accounts were promoting the same person without disclosing that they were the same person is sufficient abuse to justify a block. " Really? Without any warning or lighter sanctions? Without any attempt to guide the editor? "Finally, the fact that the accounts did not overlap timewise and that the earlier account wasn't blocked does not prevent a block for socking. " Actually, it does in most cases. From WP:SOCK intro: "Sock puppetry takes various forms:

   Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
   Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
   Using another person's account (piggybacking)
   Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
   Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)"

Which of those applies here? Only the second one, at first glance, apart from the fact that you only became aware of the account through the Teahouse discussion where they basically disclosed that they were one and the same (as if that wasn't obvious by creating the exact same page), and where they even linked to you: "Hi fellow wikipedians a few days back i created a page with proper content & reliable sources (Ponni_Concessao) before a while ago it got deleted by User:Bbb23."

Let me repeat this: they said they had created the previous version, and that you had deleted that one: and they linked to you explicitly, meaning you would get a notification. So contrary to what you claim, they had disclosed that they were the same person, no checkuser was needed, and the claim that they "never disclosed the earlier account until they requested an unblock" is disproven by the very discussion you link to here. Can you now please unblock the account (I won't even request that you make an apology, like you did from RHaworth). Fram (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the many ways notifications can go wrong, it's unwise to assume someone got one. In this case, if Bbb23 was notified, it wouldn't have been by User:Velanatti. Velanatti did not in fact link to Bbb23 when creating their post. [2] They changed this later, but that would not trigger a notification as no new line as added. [3] Further, even if they had gotten it right the first time, they didn't sign their post. [4] BTW, the fact that Velanatti did not sign their post is still visible in the current discussion Bbb23 linked to that you referred to, and I presume it was the same when you checked it out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not say I was pinged by Velanatti in that discussion. I said I was linked by an "editor" without mentioning his username, but for clarity it was AlanM1.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well; I imagine if this goes to arbcom—as some seem to be intimating, although not yet saying outright (who wants to put the bell on the cat?)—the CU block would be scrutinised as a causative event, I wouldn't wonder.

Obviously, in case it is unclear, I'm advocating neither. ——SN54129

I agree with Guy that Draftifying would've been the way to go here. I'll also add my own opinion that I think Bbb23 may get a little trigger happy with the Checkuser blocks, or at least that is the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I did a rather thorough review of all of Bbb's blocks for users I had welcomed to the project. The blocks I found I disagreed with Bbb the most on didn't appear to involve the functionary tool whatsoever. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are some things being misused here. A7 is for articles lacking a credible claim of significance. This is not the case here, as the subject receiving national awards reaches this low bar. Claims don't have to be backed up by reliable sources to meet this, but in this case they are. C11 is problematic: in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. It is problematic because we have no consensus whatsoever on when something requires a "fundamental rewrite" or what is meant by "encyclopedic". Like Fram, I thought it was only for blatant advertising, and am troubled by its application in this case. As a non-admin, when I put something up for speedy deletion, I usually want it speedily, as it is probably holding me or one of the bots up; but it shouldn't be done thoughtlessly. Which brings us to the undelete. When an article is undeleted, does the admin see it in its undeleted form? A software change may be required here. Thirdly, the images were removed from the article, ostensibly because they were copyvio, but action was taken to put them up for deletion. This is the second time in as many days that I have seen this happen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  When you undelete a page you are taken to a confirmation page that your action went through, not to the page you've just undeleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  So to know that there is a speedy deletion tag on it, the admin would have to then load the page, right? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Or look at it before he restored it. Or, y'know, remember that he only found it in the first place because there was a speedy deletion tag on it. —Cryptic 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  In this particular instance the speedy deletion nomination was clearly labeled in the article's history which is located immediately below the section that lets you restore the entire page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Hawkeye7. This is a caustic and WP:BITEy reply to a noob. Some admins view themselves as the gatekeepers and it's their job to prevent EVERYTHING unnecessary from entry. Unfortunately, that can result in zeal that errs on the side of deletion rather than inclusion. This is just one example of the inevitable results. I'm not calling for a block or anything of the kind, merely community consensus that such behavior should stop. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with the above. This was horrible botched from the very start. The initial CSD tag by RHaworth was blatantly inapplicable, and the fact that an administrator added it is concerning. I agree that it shows a huge lack of policy understanding, or an outright willingness to ignore it. Tacking on G11 (unsalvageable spam) is unconvincing, as the article did not require a fundamental rewrite, but some minor copyediting. But I can at least see that part as being justifiable. The second G11 however is blatantly inapplicable as well! Both bad CSD actions were done by RHaworth. The CU block is also dubious, indeed it's hard to see where Sock or CU policy would have been applicable. Abandoning that old account and making a new one does not only appear to be benign, as no actual socking was attempted and there was no overlap whatsoever between the two accounts, but it was probably the appropriate thing to do, as the first account was most likely a violation of username policy, per either WP:MISLEADNAME or WP:PROMONAME. Now, I have found Bbb's behavior to be subpar on more than one occasion. He can be overly aggressive, unduly hostile, and he oftentimes plays fast and loose with the rules, and in my opinion is prone to acting more like an unaccountable, independent fiefdom, than a servant of the community. I've criticized him for it on more than one occasion and I'd like to believe he is working on it. I do recognize that the for every issue I have with Bbb, there are thousands upon thousands of thankless tasks he is performing. I can see this as a lack of patience and excessive heavy-handedness on his end. I'm not pleased with his approach here but I can at least understand it. Bbb23 should take note that this could have been handled better, nothing more. As for RHaworth, I'm actually seriously concerned. I have no idea what this guy is doing and he appears to be operating completely off the rails. I don't see how an editor of that magnitude can actually lack simple policy knowledge, and I agree with the above suggestions that this reflects not a poor understanding of policy, but a wanton disregard for them. Adding an inapplicable CSD tag. Then, actioning this inapplicable CSD tag on the same article. Then, SALTing the article, after it had been appropriately recreated and inappropriately deleted. And to top it all off, unilateral reversion of a CU block? What the hell is going on here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Horrible abuse. What's the process for revoking checkuser rights over abuse? Using it to BITE newbies is not why the tool exists. Wikipedia was not protected with this abuse of process and misuse of tools and policy. In fact it was harmed and it needs to be stopped. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that part of the basis for this thread is now part of an Arbitration Case Request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is the equivalent of shooting someone who walks into a police station to report that they may have been trespassing. Agreed that there needs to be some form of oversight over the checkuser process. Policy-wise there might not have been anything strictly wrong with the initial block, but from a common sense standpoint, it was a poor block indeed. No comment on RHaworth; I think the WP:ARBCOM case will handle that with the thoroughness it deserves--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Does BITE even still apply any more? Larssen sheet piling seems to be trying to even out-do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In practice? No. Overall new page patrolling is so eager to chase away everyone who might have a conflict of interest they chase away everyone except those people whose conflict of interest is so strong it makes them willing to take a fair amount of bites. ;) Of course, there are solutions, but they're mostly not policy ones (except, perhaps, re-writing all the warning and notification templates to make them human-readable). WilyD 06:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is very much the Wikipedia way to choose a group of volunteers to whom the poster does not belong, and to dump on them. It is very much the Wikipedia way, which doesn't make it the right thing to do. Thank you for your comment dumping on New Page Patrol. Maybe we should go back to a few years ago when the new page list was even more polluted with crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New editors would be less likely to be bitten if they got a little experience editing existing pages rather than thinking that every new editor should create one new page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like that characterisation of new page patrol - a machine in which I am definitely a cog, you're welcome to fix it. Solutions that require new editors to have significant experience probably won't be effective, though. WilyD 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it fair to ask what the knock-on effects of NPP are. And the degree to which we tolerate COI editing is indeed ripe for discussion. That said I don't think NPP's attempts to limit COI damage to our encyclopedia are doing more harm than good and indeed I would suggest the benefits far outweigh the costs. If Wily has thoughts about non-BITEY language that could be used by NPP around this area, or other concrete changes to procedures to suggest, I know I would be interested in hearing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump factoid spam

Can we swing with a heavy hammer at all the "Donald Trump is the first [person from the article] to be impeached" contributions? I mean come on Q ^{T C} 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could tell people where this is happening, by means of diffs. I believe that Trump is the third US president to be impeached, which seems to me, from across the pond, to be the important thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You can check the history for Home Alone 2 or check these diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_National_Golf_Club_Westchester&diff=prev&oldid=931678139
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Alone_2:_Lost_in_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=931707063
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=931707355&oldid=927880983&title=WWE_Hall_of_Fame_(2013)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=931707746
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Military_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=931708369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=931708770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exostosis&diff=prev&oldid=931709022
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivana_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=931709704
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Little_Rascals_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=931710559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=57th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=931710977
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoolander&diff=prev&oldid=931712153
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_videos&diff=prev&oldid=931712624

Q ^{T C} 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If they all have a similar format, maybe an edit filter? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all one user AFAICS, so no need for that, surely. User:Murica2020 seems to have created their account purely for the purpose of adding such stuff to articles. Look at this for instance, added to the Ivana Trump article: "On December 18th, 2019 Ivana Trump became the first former Czechoslovkian [sic] model to have an ex-husband impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives." Unbelievable. Now that OverlordQ has warned them, I hope the next admin who sees another related addition from them, or other trolling, blocks indefinitely. I'm on my way to bed myself, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

Oh, my bad, from the way it was written I assumed it was a whole bunch of people (it seems to have become a meme on social media). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That account is clearly WP:NOTHERE and maybe should've been blocked already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Robmillernow may be another. See: [5] as well as [6]. --Masem (t) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it got posted to Reddit, so theres going to be some copycatting. Q ^{T C} 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah....mentioning something in the article on Trump (and/or his presidency) is definitely worthwhile, but going this....overkill....is not. I will note that both accounts mentioned have since been blocked (Murica2020 indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE and Robmillernow for 1 week due to disruptive editing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now there's Special:Diff/931758715 and Special:Diff/931778745, from different IPs. I'll do something about a filter, instead of waiting weeks as with the Epstein didn't kill himself crap. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Logging at filter 1018 (hist · log). Will need further refinement before disallowing, but let's see how common this is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• yep. I hate Twitter 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now Newsweek too Q ^{T C} 16:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There's good reason that the current iteration of Newsweek has been questioned as an RS... --Masem (t) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:EFN § Set filter 1018 to warn?. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, we've got a new IPv6.[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I blocked that IP for a month. I possibly should have blocked the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:BEE1:1B40:7DF2::/64 but we can monitor that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Move Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School back to mainspace for AfD

The page Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School has existed as an article for a dozen years. I suggest that an administrator moves the draft back to mainspace at Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School and then brings the article to articles for deletion to obtain consensus for notability or non-notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with moving it to article space specifically for the purpose of the AFD. If its notability is uncertain, it should be in draft space. If it is in draft space, it should be moved to article space by an editor who is willing to defend its notability. If no one is willing to defend its notability, it can be left in draft space. If that means G13 in June 2020, that means G13 in June 2020. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:DRAFTIFY. We don't send 10-year-old articles to draft space. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't need help from an admin: you can do all that yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is been put in the Articles for Creation queue to help get it ready for mainspace again (or for getting it removed via G13). Let it sit and see if the author wants to improve it. Moving it to Article space just to AFD it flies against both the spirit and intention of Draftspace. If you trully think it needs to be deleted now, make your case at WP:MFD. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the draft by G13 would be backdoor deletion in this case as the article has been around for 10 years - it would be against WP:DRAFTIFY Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as clearly inappropriate. Send to AFD or PROD or whatnot as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Izno. I was going to do the same myself, as it is pretty clearly the move to draft space, rather than the move back, that flies against the spirit and intention of draft space. If an article needs to be deleted it should go through the proper process, rather than the use of draft space as a backdoor route to deletion that we see regularly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by 72.71.211.16

User:72.71.211.16 made a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit: [8]. Clovermoss (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, attempted to do a WP:DOLT check but the source isn't available in my region. Help, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's a news source published by ABC and mostly focuses on how the city of Boston approved the parade request, with some focus on refusing the request to have a straight pride flag at city hall. The parade itself was approved, since "they cannot deny a permit based on an organization's values". The article does say that the parade is "controversial" but doesn't explicitly call it an anti-LGBT hate organization. Clovermoss (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-No Erasmus: I checked the Washington Post article. Washington Post elaborates on John Hugo, saying "Hugo and his fellow organizers want to include an "S" for "Straight"" and later on, provides a comparison to "similar calls other majority groups that view themselves as persecuted". I can check and summarize oath sources if you want me to. Clovermoss (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We should find a source for the "hate group" somewhere, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I'm not a major contributor to the article, just someone who was patrolling recent changes. I'll try to do my best, anyways. I'll see if I can find anything directly calling it a hate organization. Also, sorry for the previous incorrect ping - my autocorrect sucks sometimes. Clovermoss (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Detroit News states "Counter-demonstrators accused those organizers of promoting an atmosphere of violence toward the LGBTQ community" after the parade had taken place, and there's an image in the article with a sign stating "Make normalcy normal again". It also mentions police confrontations and arrests. The last source in that sentence is an archived version of the organization's own website. I'm not seeing the organization being explicitly being called an anti-LGBT hate group in the current sources. What should the course of action here moving forward? I'm not really experienced when it comes to handling legal threats and content relating to them. Clovermoss (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

First a key point, while we block editors for making legal threats, ultimately we can't stop them actually taking legal action. The number who have actually done so is tiny, especially compared to the number who've made threats, and even most who have tried have failed poorly, and so editors probably want to carefully evaluate whether the threat seems to have any merit. But each editor needs to decide for themselves what the threats means for them. Remembering also that in many jurisdictions, it may not be necessary to warn before taking legal action so if you are concerned about such things it does affect all of your editing here.

In terms of wikipedia itself, what editors should do is simply ignore the threat. Treat is as a complaint about content and look into whether the complaint is justified and take action based on that without regard to the legal threat. I have modified the content since if someone pointed out to me that the sources don't actually support the claim being made and when I checked I found they were right, I would have modified the content accordingly.

Maybe those sources to support what we said before do exist but especially given we directly mention a potentially non notable individual, someone needs to clearly provided them first. (If they provide them, they are free to re-add.)

Personally, I think the best solution is simply to delete the article. I'm unconvinced they are notable since most of the sources seems to be primarily about the parade and those I looked at often don't seem to really distinguish the organisation and the organisers of the parade.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We block people for making legal threats because it makes it next to impossible for people to discuss things calmly with the person making that threat. People need to choose between making edits to Wikipedia and making legal threats, but either way the person making the threat might be right or wrong. In this case I can't find a reliable source saying directly that this is a hate organisation. My preference would be to delete the article on the basis that I can't find any sources other than news reports about it, but there seem to be a lot of editors on Wikipedia who regard such news sources as adequate to keep an article, although any historian or social scientist would regard them as primary sources, which we are not supposed to base articles on. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: and @Phil Bridger: Thank you for your responses, I appreciate them. Usually I'm not afraid to edit articles, but the whole legal threat thing just made me hesistant to do anything at all with the article (other than reporting and discussing it here). I'll keep all of this in mind for the future. Again, thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

Can one of you maybe head over to User talk:Arcanery and look at their unblock request? It's been open for a while. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-anything observer) Considering that they have been allowed to swamp their talk page with >4,000 words—about 500 edits over two days!—I think they are the one needing the luck, especially considering their continued aspersions, IDHT and the general battleground "it's-them-not-me" approach. And what's with the multiple "Case 01" stuff? Goodbye talk page access, hello peace and quiet for the admin corp. ——SN54129 14:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

TPA revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Oversight team

At his own request, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 for his long history of service to the functionary team.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP backlog

There's currently 15 requests waiting. An advance thank you to anyone who decides to help out with it. Clovermoss (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I counted wrong, it's actually 21. Recently woke up from a bad dream so I'm tired but unable to actually sleep (hence editing Wikipedia). Clovermoss (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RfPP is a little backed up

File:37 pending requests!.jpg

Earlier this month. El_C 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

going back ~ 20 hours, if any would "care to lend a warm and helping hand-- Say Jack Frost and the Hooded Crow". --Jethro Tull-- Deepfriedokra 18:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(all already gone, thanks to Ymblanter et al. ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redoing ping to Ymblanter. Graham87 00:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Newly created accounts obvious socks

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

---

• FarregHo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marcshi 1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jackie Peterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yoyo Mina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These newly created accounts have joined wikipedia just for ToTok (app) and to vote delete in the deletion discussion. It is very very likely that they are sockpuppets.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Normally we deal with socks at SPI, in this case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackie Peterson. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I thought that when we have a WP:DUCK case we report it here, right?.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that SPI is still the place, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets, even in duck cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

SPI is the right place, because it keeps all the data about socks in a central location, in a uniform (parsable) format, with structured archives. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Bizarre pattern of whitewashing by Dab134124 and an IP editor

The edit history of Dab134124 (talk · contribs · count) shows a bizarre pattern; 90% of the editor's activity consisted in removing information that could potentially be perceived as negative towards Britain – both the erstwhile British Empire and the modern-day United Kingdom. I am flabbergasted with the unusually wide thematic range. Just see:

• [9] removes (Great Britain's wealth derived from West Indian sugar and slave trade, 1776 starvation), 194–195 (Alexandra Hospital), 211–223 (electricity, Anguilla in 1967, OECD blacklist). Nevis is also known by the sobriquet "Queen of the Caribees", which it earned in the 18th century when its sugar plantations created much wealth for the British.
• [10] removes sourced text There are some similarities between his and Scottish (self-)projections, which compared Indian tribes with Scottish clans and their fight with the English.
• [11] replaces, among others, the anglophone world (which includes Britain in a negative context) with "the American society"
• [12] removes sourced text So with this white discrimination of African American soldiers, these troops were often sent to Europe where they were used to fill vacancies in the French armies. Unlike the Americans, the French held high opinions of black soldiers, which made for a more positive environment when working together. Ironically this made African American troops more passionate about fighting for the French Army. This newly created patriotism by African Americans then led to the creation of the 369th Infantry Regiment.
• [13] replaces against the British Army as Rebel (Patriot) commanders with "for the American cause", I assume so as not to make it that obvious that anyone ever fought Britain
• [14] in the sourced text led to a growing resentment against British meddling, adds unsourced "perceived" before "British meddling". Sure, Britain never engaged in meddling, it was only a "perception"
• [15] removes several paragraphs that mention that the article subject, much praised in the article, was opposed to (and by) the British
• [16] removes the sourced who some British officers regarded as "shaky"
• [17] adds and decisive defeat of Spanish and French attackers, in case anyone had doubts about who lost the battle
• [18] replaces sourced British woman with unsourced "UK citizen"
• [19] subtle whitewashing at three places
• [20] removes a passage that mentioned disenchantment with Oliver Cromwell's rule over Scotland
• [21] changes sourced wording the displacement of indigenous Australians, which may imply a role of the English, to unsourced "them [the English] becoming one on the dominant ethnic groups in Australia"
• [22] simply removes Great Britain from the list of countries
• [23] removes a passage on cruelty inflicted by British troops on civilian population
• [24] removes a sourced text that mentions that the British copied an invention and that a specific military act of Britain was perceived as treason
• [25] removes a sentence in which the article subject is mentioned as fighting against the English (and others)
• [26] removes a mention that an engineer working for Sweden during Swedish-British wars was English
• [27] removes sourced text The remainder of the [English] prize crew were made prisoners by the Spanish
• [28] replaces a passage that suggests Britain's responsibility in East Timor carnages with a passage on involvement of other countries (albeit sourced)
• [29] removes the name of a Spanish commander who fought against the British
• [30] replaces the British and American governments, in the context of a false blame, with "the American government"

I have reverted all edits that I saw as spurious and left a notice on Dab134124's talk. But am am seeing that the editor continues in the same style.

There are hardly any edits by Dab134124 that would not consist in removing some negative information about Britain.

Today I also noticed that 212.116.64.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been doing pretty much the same type of edits over the last month.

Now, what will be the correct course of action here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP (warned sufficiently) for a month and gave the named user a final warning (not warned sufficiently), even though they are likely the same person. That it far too much unexplained removals, even regardless of anything else. Communication is required once one's edits are challenged. Please let me know if the named user continues to exhibit this disruptive behaviour, or if the IP (or any IP) resumes it. El_C 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep them on my watchlist. Although it was more a matter of luck to spot the IP as the two overlapped only in one article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: It did not work [31][32]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dab134124 blocked for one week. El_C 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Cherkash creates controversial maps showing Crimea as a part of Russian Federation without proper notation related to territorial disputes

The user Cherkash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creates multiple maps on Formula_One topics deliberately depicting Crimea as a part of Russian Federation (example1, example2) without proper warning or a reference to territorial disputes. The ongoing discussion about the borders of the countries has not been resolved (the recent attempts from the User:SSSB looks inconclusive). The maps show neither "de facto" status of the territories (which would need to mark Northern_Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and some other regions in alternate colours), nor "de jure" (United Nations recognised Crimea as Ukrainian, no notes about Taiwan not depicted as a part of China), nor according to List_of_FIA_member_organisations (which is consistent with United Nation but comprises Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate members).

I hereby made a conclusion that User:Cherkash deliberately creates such maps only to conduct the idea of "Russian Crimea", which may be explained by his/her Russian origin (many captions are in Russian). The maps are used on multiple pages in different languages (the example), hence the harm is substantional.

I request for the removal of these maps from the mentioned pages (or at least protect the discussion from being resolved), and oblige User:Cherkash to change the map according to one of the options: "de facto status" (change colours of Northern_Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and other Russian-occupied regions, with the essential disclaimer that the status of these territories is questioned), "de jure status" (Crimea as a part of Ukraine, Taiwan as a part of China/not a part with the corresponding explanation added) or according to FIA (which still recognises Crimea as Ukrainian).
Unas964 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The files have been created on Wikimedia Commons, not on the English Wikipedia. Moreover, any user can create any maps there, and many maps in fact have several versions, corresponding to different territorial claims. The real question is that our articles here must be neutral, and, indeed, we usually use maps where Crimea is clearly marked as disputed territory. Have you tried to discuss this with the user?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Btw you have to notify the user of this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Apparently, done now--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been a part of this from the very beginning and I was mentioned in Unas964's report so let me give you my take on the situation.

Back in mid November Unas964 started a thread at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map essentially saying exactly what he has said above and we have had a long debate on de facto vs. De jure borders with no clear consensus. This discussion reached a natural end with no new comments from 4 December to today (25 December) and so I made a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC and placed a notice at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map explaining this (since then Unas964 has complained there that it shouldn't be closed, not sure what that means for the closing process.)

Now to get to the very core of what Unas964's complaint is about in relation to Cherkash. My reading of the situation is that Cherkash's intention is for the map to show de facto borders (Wikipedia is of course independent to both the FIA and the UN). The maps incidentally show the 2 most well known de facto regions (Taiwan and Crimea) correctly. It appears to me that someone need only inform Cherkash that he has missed a lesser known disputed border and he would fix it.

I therefore think that the only problem here is Unas964's continued inability to assume good faith by suggesting my opinion is based exclusively on political motives (see Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map) by saying that I am pro Russia and I'm trying to politicise the article to reflect my alleged political bias towards Russia and by suggesting Cherkash is likewise biased towards Russia (see the paragraph above that begins with I hereby made...).

The rest of Unas964's complaint isnt actually a complain but is rather him expressing his opinion on why the map should show de jure borders and should therefore be ignored in relation to this thread.

By the way: what do you mean by protect the discussion from being resolved - that contradicts the point of having a discussion.
SSSB (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Unas964: Why don't you add a better map, then? Concern with Wikimedia content should be voiced there IMHO. If a WM image (map etc.) is unsuitable for Wikipedia inclusion, you simply don't include. You may also try to find a better image instead. I see no problem if you'd clone the maps, correct the borders in accordance with WP policies, and add these new images to articles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I did create one alternative map (could be seen here), but it was reverted by User:SSSB since the outcome of the discussion was still open. Foreseeing the same result if trying to upload another files here or on different pages, I decided to get into the discussion. Besides, there are no options to change/revert the existent maps on Wikimedia Commons (the example is restricted at least for me) either. Anyway, the key problem remains: the maps does not represent any consistent formula (de jure/de facto etc) and no captions are added in regard to the status of temporarily occupied (as Crimea) or disputed territories.--Unas964 (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Unas964:, the discussion is taking place to determine which consistent approach to take and then any regions which have been incorrectly coloured can be mentioned and we can set about trying to fix those mistakes. You are more than welcome to add the caption this map shows de facto status if you wish.
SSSB (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, I didn't see the discussion there, my bad. Sure, here is the right venue. Maps, like everything else, have to comply with WP:N. Since the majority of the world (including the UN) has not recognised Crimea's annection as legitimate, Wikipedia must follow that generally accepted view. @SSSB: No, if maps were to follow de facto status, then they will show Afghanistan and Yemen split into two entities each; show Palestine within Israel; or show the Guantanamo Bay as part of the US. But we don't do it for a reason. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and see this is only a tip of an iceberg spanning both Wikipedia and the Commons. For a couple of years, User:Cherkash has been quietly replacing the key maps used across the entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system with his versions that show Abkhasia and South Ossetia as independent entities and Crimea as part of Russian Federation. For blank maps, the changes frequently were only in the code, so that later editors, when creating customised maps, will unknowingly colour-code Crimea as part of Russia. When the globally used map File:World.svg could not be safely edited due to the possibly high number of watchers, User:Cherkash created a new file File:BlankMap-World.svg with his version of countries, started replacing the links all over, and made sure to tag World.svg as superseded by their own map[33]) to which they created lengthy documentation.

They also went on to create a number of maps with their political version that they inserted in widely-read articles, especially ones about Formula 1 racing; see File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2019.svg under "Other versions".

This is a pattern of editing that is also typical of low-level propaganda wars. Because Wikipedia MUST adhere to the principle of neutrality, I think we need to make sure that User:Cherkash cannot continue in this way.

I have now uploaded a cleaned-up version of File:BlankMap-World.svg but to go through all their contributions to restore WP:N will take considerable time and effort, one which I cannot commit to. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Surely we should, as has already been suggested on the talk page, have a map that doesn't show any borders but simply the locations of the various grands prix? That way we avoid bringing irrelevant political issues into articles that are not about those issues, but we would still illustrate the geographical distribution of grands prix. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. But I also had in mind long-term damage to the project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: have you remembered to mark Taiwan as Chinese territory? (Taiwan is only de facto independent and in my experience that often gets overlooked) and what un-neutral about de facto borders? Surly if the map is consistently de facto then it is neutral? (And I know some regions have ben missed)
  SSSB (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  I would be very wary of using de facto maps in any article that is not about the territorial dispute itself. OK, Taiwan has remained de facto stable for several decades and Crimea for several years, but where there is a current conflict the territory controlled de facto by the warring parties can change from day to day. I would still say that we should avoid showing boundaries unless they are relevant to the particular article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SSSB: Don't worry, User:Cherkash has already conveniently marked Taiwan as Chinese territory. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also, as I wrote, more than half of Afghanistan is de facto controlled by the Taliban, so why not including it? Also large parts of the Middle East were de facto controlled by the "Islamic State" in the last couple of years. Have you remembered to mark this appropriately? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lyulya kebab

Could someone familiar with DS take a look and see if WP:ARBAA2 applies? COuld determine if the notices should be placed on the talk page? There is nationalist edit warring afoot, and I SP'd per request at WP:RFPP. -- Deepfriedokra 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle, policy citations, controversial topic on first 2 edits, I'll AGF but I'll be shocked if this editor is truly new. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but ChefDarrbinyan and ChefDarbinyan are  Confirmed to ChefAzamuyan. Littlecat456, who created a user page for ChefDarbinyan, has a history of both logged-in and logged-out vandalism. They're all indefinitely blocked now. It's just a gut feeling, but I suspect there may be more Chef-themed sleepers hidden somewhere. That's all I've got for now, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So DS shouldn't be needed. Just run-of-the-mill socking-- Deepfriedokra 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing content without a good reason

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

---

Please check: Gabriel Calderón history I find it interesting that this user (User:Editor7798) also knows Persian, but he/she says don't use Persian resources! Saayeeh (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I see all of one attempt to discuss the matter (which is just a warning template), and nowhere (obvious) in Editor7798's contributions do I see discussion about languages or the ability to speak them.Primefac (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody, to clarify the situation, please check User talk:Saayeeh, where i warned this user for Unhelpful edits, with logical reasons, but saayeeh reverted my talk!!!!!!!please check this....is this wikipedia?!is this the rule of wikipedia? Sorry for out-of-law behaviors of this user...Editor7798 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 4

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case is amended by inserting, at the end of the list titled "ARBPIA", the following list item:

• General 1RR restriction

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 4

Meatpuppetry across the Michael Jackson articles

Moved this here after this (followup comment here).

I don't know where to address this, but it needs to be addressed because it's affecting our Wikipedia articles in detrimental ways. Like I stated on Laser brain's talk page, there have been meatpuppetry issues when it comes to Jackson fans at the Jackson articles. As new accounts, they show up to the same articles, including new articles that they could not have known about unless told about them offline, show very little interest in editing non-Jackson articles (or if they do, it's to look less like WP:Single-purpose accounts), turn their user page (or user page and talk page) blue as to attract less attention, and then they peddle their POVs. Sometimes they turn their user page blue first, including with the typical sockpuppet use of a dot or series of dots to turn their user page blue or with some sentence. They then blank their user page on the same day, or a week, month, or few months later. Sometimes they start a sandbox immediately. The way they work is a coordinated effort (which is no surprise, going by what sources like this The New York Times source and this The Daily Beast source have reported on), supporting one another to influence discussions (including when one of them took me to ANI). This is an obvious problem because if I, for example, start an RfC at Talk:Michael Jackson, it will mainly consist of these new accounts weighing in, twisting our policies and guidelines to suit their personal feelings with regard to Jackson. This all started with the pending release of Leaving Neverland (a controversial documentary about child sexual abuse) and increased when it was released. For anyone familiar with WP:Student editors, these accounts are similar to student editors, in that they show up out of nowhere with one goal (in this case, to support Jackson/his legacy), edit alike, support one another, and seem coached. They will already be aware of some rules, such as WP:Assume good faith (knowing this one apparently because they are already aware that they will be considered or called a sock or a meatpuppet). I would link to certain accounts here (without pinging them) as examples of their behavior so that editors will see what I mean, but this isn't a WP:SPI. And they would simply cry "assume good faith" anyway. But linking to the discussions here and pointing to the talk page history of the Michael Jackson article is enough to see some of the accounts I mean.

As seen in this ANI thread, CheckUser Berean Hunter has previously looked into possible sockpuppetry regarding the Jackson fan editors. While no sockpuppetry has yet been identified, the meatpuppetry is obvious. I've noted obvious meatpuppets to Berean Hunter via email. And as seen here and here, meatpuppetry and gaming the system was addressed by JBW, who I contacted via email about this. As seen in those discussions involving JBW and via the aforementioned link pointing to Laser brain's talk page, these editors are not above gaming the system to get extended confirmed status. Popcornduff has also seen the meatpuppetry. This new editor has also seen it, and complained to NinjaRobotPirate about it. And Popcornduff and editors such as Excelse, Snow Rise and myself have seen issues with articles like "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson." Note that I'm not linking to that article; this is because it will bring the creator -- a Jackson fan who has demonstrated POV issues with regard to Jackson -- to this talk page. And then meatpuppets may follow. I'm not sure what to do. WP:Meatpuppetry does state, "A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.'" But can anything be done about this? Will this need WP:Arbitration, like Gamergate did with regard to socks and meatpuppets? I think it likely will. The meatpuppets outnumber non-Jackson fans such as myself trying to keep fan-skewed edits out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Not counting bots, 107 registered users have posted on Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 up to now. Of the 107 users, 23 accounts were created in 2019. Their total edit counts are:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325

The first nine of those made a single comment at the talk page, but no other edit. It's clear there is a problem at the Michael Jackson pages but the solution is hard to see. Some kind of discretionary sanctions might be useful but the community is very weak at dealing with "good faith" comments by obvious meatbots. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, because I have no experience in investigating sockpuppets and meatpuppets, but I will say this: the Michael Jackson articles are a constant battleground of seemingly inexperienced editors pushing POV views. I would describe them as something of a nightmare in that regard. And unlike other areas I've worked on in my ten-ish years of Wikipedia, they don't seem to go away. I always assumed they were co-ordinating in some way on a Discord server or something. Popcornduff (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I might be missing something (probably am), but how are these meatpuppets getting round the ECP? I mean, if they're gaming the system to artificially inflate their edit counts then it's legitimate to bust them back to confirmed user status at the minimum. ——SN54129 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, lots of Jackson-related articles, such as Leaving Neverland and Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, have no page protection, for a start... Popcornduff (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • True dat. Also, see a recent discussion; this thread answers my question. ——SN54129 11:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• If specific Jackson related articles need protection, then that can be given if diffs are presented to show a pattern of problematic behaviour to the articles. I wouldn't consider comments on a talkpage to be sufficient reason for protection of the article, though offensive or troubling remarks made by a user on a talkpage may be reason to sanction that user. I have indefinitely semi-protected Leaving Neverland. It has been protected for short periods five times this year, and inappropriate edits by IP and new editors are still occuring frequently. I've not looked at the other Jackson articles, and won't have time until later this evening. SilkTork (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is quite the spectacle! Flyer22_Reborn has themself admitted to have seen "POV-pushing from both sides". But in this complaint, they're putting all emphasis on supposed pro-Jackson meat puppets.

In a developing discussion [34], user scope_creep has shown a clear conflict of interest and POV-pushing: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change."

User popcorndruff once wrote: "the biased language in this article is beginning to cause me physical pain"[35].

Just a month ago, an anti-MJ canvassing plot (to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary") was uncovered (evidence and all) [36].

This article alleges that Harvey Weinstein allegedly paid writers to write gossip items about Jackson.

As for Jude1313, they were blocked for edit-warring (four reverts within 24 hours). They made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame.

In this conversation [37], user Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason. Flyer22_Reborn then proceeded to lash out at several editors she perceived as Jackson fans, calling them "rabid", falsely accusing them of using the talk page as a forum, of possibly being sockpuppets, etc. User SNUGGUMS then stated that Flyer22_Reborn's "rabid Jackson fan" remark was unwarranted, but they once more made the same impertinent remark.

In this discussion [38], Flyer22_Reborn made mention of "many rabid Jackson fans". I composed a pertinent response to her comment, and she then accused me of "rabidness", completely ignoring my quote of Collins Dictionary: You can use rabid to describe someone who has very strong and unreasonable opinions or beliefs about a subject, especially in politics.

There was nothing unreasonable or fanatical in my response, but this is how they try to discredit editors with whom they disagree. This very discussion by Flyer22_Reborn appears to me as an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they do not agree with. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, and I very rarely ever edited any MJ-related article until the release of Leaving Neverland ; the amount of activity and conflicts on MJ-related articles has brought my attention, and many of the users Flyer22_Reborn constantly attacks have only been trying to maintain some balance and accuracy in said articles.

Also, they've admitted to trying to conceal this notification from other editors they perceive as "fans". I'm pinging Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake and Zusammenprall to this discussion. Israell (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

...which really doesn't help your case at all. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake was blocked yesterday as a confirmed sock of Awardmaniac. And Zusammenprall is currently blocked although that is still under discussion. Israell, you state above that scope_creep has a clear conflict of interest. Please elaborate because it isn't borne out in what you have presented. I'm of the current opinion that you don't have a good idea of what conflict of interest means.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above comment by Israell, a Jackson fan, is partly what I'm talking about when it comes to Jackson fans and them showing up to discussions like this one. Israell has assisted and defended these meatpuppets, just like now. Expect others, including perhaps the original creator of the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article, to show up here. This is why I didn't link to that article, although now it's linked above. But as for how Israell found this thread, Israell likely followed Popcorndruff here. Anyway, take note that every admin I have contacted about this case has been clear that meatpuppetry is going on. Now we have admin Johnuniq noting it above as well. So why is Israell defending these meatpuppets and bringing up old disputes involving me while mischaracterizing things such as "Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason."? Israell mentions SNUGGUMS, but SNUGGUMS has been clear that I've, for the most part, acted appropriately at these articles. This clearly is not about me "try[ing] to discredit editors with whom [I] disagree." This clearly is not about this discussion being "an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they [I] agree with." It's about what Popcorndruff and others who have seen the problems have stated. And on that note, Berean Hunter recently uncovered this and this sock with regard to the Jackson articles. The "balance" these socks and meatpuppets have been "trying to maintain" is not the balance that Wikipedia wants. WP:NPOV and WP:Advocacy are clear. I should also note that it was brought to my attention these meatpuppets are likely coming from Reddit. For example, Reddit has a #JusticeForMJ hashtag active.

Berean Hunter Flyer22 Reborn Hey, I'm quite active on reddit and I have never encountered any hashtag of the sorts. Reddit isn't really a place for hashtags - maybe I visit the wrong part of Reddit. Are you talking about Twitter? There are as many anti MJ hashtags active as pro MJ hashtags. The anti Michael Jackson community is quite avid. I invite you to visit the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit. I myself joined reddit after joining wikipedia by the way. Zusammenprall (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for looking into this. Other Jackson articles that need semi-protection are the following: Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, Wade Robson, Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson's Boys. Popcorndruff can probably name some more. Pinging admin Yamla, who has dealt with some problematic editing issues concerning the Jackson articles and recently stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for linking the article - was trying to be helpful and didn't think it through. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does linking the article matter? ——SN54129 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The creator gets pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know those two users were blocked. Once again, scope_creed wrote: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change." They've made a very clear accusation, made it very clear they fully believe Jackson to be guilty when Jackson was never found guilty of any wrongdoing. Right there, it shows bias. I remember how user hatethejess was blocked for having a conflict of interest. Well, scope_creed has demonstrated the opposite conflict of interest.

If any supposedly pro-MJ editor used the language scope_creepused, Flyer and popcorndruff would yell at them, call them rabid and warn them. I am pinging Isaacsorry and TrackerMercurial136. Israell (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell why was I mentioned in this? Isaacsorry (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn... Once again... I've been on Wiki for 13 years! It's only after the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. My being a fan is your assumption, and it's completely irrelevant. Besides, it is common for Wiki editors to edit articles for which they have competency. For instance, a viewer of soap operas is more apt to edit soap articles, make sure the information is accurate (storylines, characters, actors, head writers, executive producers, etc.), than somebody who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in soaps. I've only been honest here, yet you constantly point fingers, accuse plenty of editors you do not agree with of meat puppetry, etc. Israell (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And no, I did not follow Popcorndruff here... News flash! After 13 years, I know my way around Wiki! All you and popcorndruff do is assume, assume, assume (they must come from Reddit, they must come from Discord servers, etc.). You've conveniently ignored the blatant anti-MJ canvassing plot that was uncovered just last month! Those people made very clear their intention was to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Jude1313 was an obvious meatpuppet and was blocked for that. Israell (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: You may have been on Wikipedia for 13 year but it is clear as day that your a fan and this is evidenced by the comments you have made. You don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Instead your kicking up a stink about my comments. It is worth noting that talk pages are for having frank discussions in a free and open manner within reason. You have also stated that I have a COI. I really don't. I don't listen to Jackson's music, never been a fan. You have also stated I have a POV. I don't. WP:POV is specific to the article. I don't plan to write any of the article, at any time. I was requested to comment on the talk page. I still believe the film should be mentioned in the lede.scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep:I fail to see how liking the music should be relevant in any way. Michael jackson was one of the biggest pop artists in history. The word 'pop' stands for popular music. As in: Most people will like this music. Discounting everyone who enjoys the music of Michael Jackson is discounting half of humanity. You say you are not a fan as if this is something to be proud of in this context. But One could construe that as suspicious as well. Why the interest? You might be part of the just as avid Michael Jackson hate community. Zusammenprall (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell, I'm not engaging you further on your mischaracterizations and "shifting the attention to Flyer" nonsense that you and the meatpuppets try time and time again, despite noticeboards such as the WP:Original research noticeboard making it clear that I'm in the right when it comes to article content, and admins agreeing that meatpuppetry is going on. Given this thread that Serial Number 54129 and I linked to, pinging Isaacsorry doesn't help your case either. And pinging new account TrackerMercurial136? Sighs. Also, you claiming that you just happened to find this thread is extremely disingenuous. So is your commentary that you "being a fan is [my] assumption." Your contribution history (which documents you editing a few times every year, and that the vast majority of your editing took place in 2007) shows what you focus on and your editing patterns. And yet you want us to believe that you simply decided to see what was going on at WP:AN today and found this thread about Jackson fans and meatpuppetry? Good grief. No, Jude1313 is not some obvious meatpuppet and was not blocked for that. Whatever you and the meatpuppets think you are going to accomplish by "Flyer and Popcornduff are bad" posts is misguided. Well, unless it's to derail this thread, which I won't further contribute to by replying to you, the usual suspects, or the meatpuppets. It won't change the fact that the meatpuppetry is evident and that a number of these articles need semi-protection. Meatpuppets showing up here will just further prove my case, like TruthGuardians's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, speculative bullying. There are some who truly believe that they are god’s gift to WP, some sort of king or king. Truth is, they are only a bully wrapped in experience. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So you just happened to find this thread as well. Got it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn, It is common for Wiki editors to monitor noticeboards in times of conflict. The more you bully, the more you expose yourself. Israell (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Last reply to you in this thread you've sought to derail: You've exposed yourself plenty here in this section. Your "we just showed up because we've been monitoring AN all this time" explanation doesn't fly. And it especially doesn't fly if speaking of recent conflict. What recent conflict, other than this thread? Oh, yes, I've been such a problem in this recent discussion that you and the meatpuppets just recently decided to watch AN. No. I wonder what your excuse would have been if the thread had remained at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I will say that there are some genuine concerns here, but I will also say that it just seems like a bunch of bullies protecting what they deem as their territory when it’s not, it is the people’s territory. A few months ago I was a new editor and was a victim of bullying by Flyer22 and other wiki users that they flock around in packs with. They cry “Jackson fans” this, and “Jackson fans” that, when in reality there is no rule that says “Jackson fans” can’t edit Wikipedia. In fact, as long as they remain balance, are here for more than just one purpose, and are following guidelines, they can absolutely Choose what they are subject matter experts in without being bullied and harassed by more experienced users. These same users say absolutely nothing when pedophile fantasists attempt to hijack Jackson’s pages and push their sick, unsupported POV and using anti-jackson sites like MJFacts as their sources. I don’t have an opinion on the sock puppetry stuff being mentioned here, but do believe that the guideline should be expanded to include sock puppetry bullying. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

scope_creed, you're making false assumptions here, assuming bad faith and obviously cannot read, so I'll repeat myself. I've been on Wiki for 13 years and have edited different sorts of articles. Obviously, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. It's only AFTER the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. Understood or you need a translator? Yes, you do have a POV, and you've made it very clear. You've very clearly stated that you believe MJ to be guilty, and that may cloud your judgement in votes, etc. Pot. Kettle. Israell (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn has admittedly seen TruthGuardians' reply above, a pertinent, sensical, well-crafted reply but she chose to completely dismiss it, ignore all of his arguments, assuming bad faith, calling him a "meatpuppet". Seriously... I rest my case. Israell (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you tell the meatpuppets to Beat It....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they wanna be startin' somethin'.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unblocking Zusammenprall to participate in this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a blatant exaggeration in this complaint. I resent Flyer22_Reborn for unduly and falsely accusing TruthGuardians, Partytemple and others of meatpuppetry when they (Flyer22_Reborn) and others may very well have engaged in the very behaviour they condemn. See how they give Jude1313 a full pass! Once again, that user just very recently made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame, but Flyer22_Reborn doesn't care because Jude1313 is not "a rabid MJ fan."

Lugnuts, I hope you're referring to those meatpuppets that clearly stated their intent to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Israell (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to also say that I am not against the proposed semi-protections, though I do believe the request is exaggerated. I am, however, opposed to the tribal bullying of every new user coming to post on the topic. I admittedly don’t know if this is the correct time, place, or admin to bring this topic up to, but I am researching my options at this point in time. Just at a quick glance I have discovered 33 examples of this bullying from 2 particular users as far back as only 3 months. Something needs to be done about this. It’s always the same 2-3 users!TruthGuardians (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I need to chime in on the sock puppet issue of which I was accused. Yes it is correct that I created five month ago my first wikipedia account which I then abandoned. But I did this solely to protect my privacy and to protect me from potential harassment NOT to manipulate or vandalise - my edit history should make this clear. The name of my first acc was linked to another platform on which a bunch of trolls are gunning for me. I'm a moderator of a plattform about a quite controversial subject.

That is the sole reason I abandoned my first account. A privacy concern regarding the name. The reason why I had to abandon my second account too is - to be quite frank - stupidity on my part. I accidentally linked my second account to my first. - I'm a Wikipedia newby and attempted to make an 'about me' page but accidentally linked this account again to my old name. So moved on and I created my current account in good faith.

My intent was at no time vandalism or the manipulation of votes. In fact: I never participated in any vote I'm aware of. When I abandoned one account I haven't used it ever again to push certain agendas. My edits so far were - in my opinion - of high quality and as good as never reversed or overly controversial. When someone corrected me on something I accepted it.

I may be guilty of not familiarising myself with the rules before joining a plattform. But even after reading parts of the rules now, I still maintain I never did sock puppetry. I simply had to change accounts to protect my privacy and I messed up doing that. Looking back, knowing what I know now, there of course would have been better ways to go about it. I just didn't know. Zusammenprall (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There you go! I hope you'll accept Zusammenprall's good faith and sincere, detailed explanations. Israell (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't really been involved with the Michael Jackson articles except a tangentially related AfD; but now with the evidence and testimony given above, there is clearly POV pushing and meatpuppetry going on by the 'Jackson fan' side. This sort of thing has even been reported on in the media as linked at the top - while that is specifically about social media outlets, it would be extremely naive not to think the same thing is being done on Wikipedia. I think it would be appropriate for many of these articles to be semi-protected or even extended-confirmed protected by the admins in view of the outside campaigns going on in this regard, and the kind of editing it is resulting in. As for Jude1313, I don't see anyone giving him a "free pass" - quite the opposite. And to be clear, blanking his talk page, annoying as that is, isn't the same thing as userspace behavior so as not to seem obviously new, like creating nearly-blank user pages. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I answered one edit request and got three different editors telling me I'm wrong (one of whom was a sockpuppet, two simply siding with the sockpuppet) and I had to repeatedly answer and explain, which is goddamned impossible when their mind is made up. I don't have an opinion as such, but seeing the extent of the issue, I do believe a general sanction should be applied to the Michael Jackson topic area, 30/500, 1RR and the likes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pinging Partytemple. Israell (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that the Partytemple account, which has been absent for months, showed back up just in time for Israell's ping. The Partytemple account showed back up at 01:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC). And then Israell made the ping at 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC). Great. Here comes more "Flyer22 and/or Flyer and Popcornduff are so bad" commentary. More mischaracterizations, etc., etc., etc., as if it's going to change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. But rant away. One has to ask why Israell so vehemently opposes these articles being semi-protected/having extended-confirmed protection and/or some other restriction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeout. Didn't you ping users from the talk page? What is the difference between you doing and plausibly getting a response, or someone else doing the same damn thing? I get emails when I am pinged, and I check my email often! I dont know about PartyTemple's scenario, but I definitely cant wait until I take a hihatus and comeback to attacks and accusations from you. Please hence my satire. I'm starting to conclude that WP is full of editors that are 3 weeks out of high school. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Did I ping anyone a few minutes after they had just come back after months away? No. Partytemple showed back up first and then was pinged. Another coincidence, I take it? I see. The way you and Israell insult people's intelligence is baffling, as if we were just born yesterday. Like I stated, you, Israell and Partytemple can rant away. Doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt matter when they were pinged or even when the person was pinged responds to that ping. That proves absolutely nothing. The way you bully EVERY SINGLE peron that post to Michael Jackson's page is baffling. You should be blocked from editing any of his pages based on your provably bullying history, sort of like your previous 4 blocks. You think its your terriotory. It's not. You think you are queen of Wiki. You're not. You need to seriously get over yourself and your alleged intelligence being insulted. I dont care when you were born, I know when you act like you were though. In any event, I agree with semi-protections because of users like Jude1313 and the random IP edits that vandalize the pages, I dont oppose that to be honest. I also agree that it doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles. I just believe that you want it for selfish reasons to prevent you and your kind from falling in the minority since for so long you have managed to bully your way through controversial edits about Jackson.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter? Of course it matters. The only people it doesn't matter to are those wanting others to play dumb. And my four previous blocks? As my block log is clear about, I was cleared of sockpuppetry. One of the CUs who blocked me unblocked me after investigating. I was blocked once to protect my account, and the other was an unnecessary block that was reversed. There are admins like NeilN, who also has a faulty block log. And? The "Flyer is bad" people (who are always problematic editors sour about me challenging their problematic editing) always cite my block log like it proves their case about me. All it proves is a lack of reading comprehension. As for the rest, it's more of the same from you. Time to ignore you in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Still the same speclative bullying that I come to expect from my first day even meeting you. By the way, before I even made my first Jackson article edit, all I did was comment on a talk page and was subjected to your cyberbullying. My problem isnt with your sockpuppetry accusations, I read your page and I believe you, it isn't your sometime evident anti-Jackson POV pushes and editor association, everyone is entitltled to their way of thinking and who the hang out with, my ONLY problem is with your lack of warm welcomes, softskills, WP-goodfaith, wiki-etiquette, and most of all, wiki-bullying. Anyway, Ill allow you peace under your tinfoil hat. In the meantime, I'm going to call the Jackson estate to see what they want my next edit to be.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all, and I resent you for your constant accusations. You are the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki. Israell (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I actually pinged Partytemple at 00:55 on the Michael Jackson Talk page [39] before Partytemple showed up at 01:20, which defeats Flyer22 Reborn's accusation. ]. I pinged him because he was until very recently heavily involved in Michael Jackson-related discussions and articles, made pertinent contributions, and his consensus (and that of other editors) is needed. I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Moxy, Berean Hunter. Israell (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell's earlier ping defeats my statement? Nope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Israell (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And, for others' knowledge, the pinging on that talk page doesn't compare. The pinging Israell is talking about has Israell pinging a string of editors who agree with Israell, whereas this pinging by me is me pinging a variety editors from both sides of two different debates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not quite! Israell (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

To others, regarding the "Not quite!" above, look at that post on that talk page. See what is stated. Doesn't compare whatsoever. This is what I mean about the disingenuous comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this talk after commenting on the talk page how odd it is the article always has new editors all on one side of the debate without willingness to compromise. On the behavior at the talk....most of us will see it as a somewhat heated but nothing actionable. Think may be best to invite experienced editors to the talk page....rfc or whatever.--Moxy 🍁 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The real questions should be as follows: Who are the sock puppets? Have they been exposed? What, if any, real damage have they caused? Does 1-2 bad Apples ruin it for everyone else? Are people just overreacting? People need to stop with the echo chambers, the tribal bullying, and possibly WP need to completely revamp who are admins, why they are admins, and allow complaint processies to have admins investigated for various reasons.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough w/ the conspiracy theories. It's enough! Partytemple has been a regular editor; isn't he allowed to take a lil' break from editing Wiki and partaking in discussions? Doesn't mean he hadn't been watching the pages, watching the discussions (no need to log in to view them). Moxy, there have been editors on all sides of the debate, and maybe those new editors you're referring to have the ability to think for themselves! Israell (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What is needed is experienced editors that are familiar with this type of situation is what is being said. As has been demonstrated over and over again at the article is vote staking does not help.--Moxy 🍁 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Israell (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I got pinged by Flyer22, so I'm apparently one of those 16. However, all my previous interaction with Flyer22 on the Jackson talk page (the only place I've interacted with her) consisted of fervent disagreement about practically everything, and I've written quite critically of Flyer22 in the past. In my view, Flyer22's pings were a good-faith and impartial effort to notify various previous highly active participants in the relevant discussions, and not an attempt to notify friends or people she agrees with, so it's not at all comparable to any possible meat puppetry among Jackson fans. --Tataral (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Great to see some experienced editors there now not matter wish way they are leaning..--Moxy 🍁 14:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence at all to these claims of bullying. It sounds to me a lot like the deflection that some editors do when on the losing side of disputes. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Israell: you're bludgeoning and overwhelming this AN thread with long repetitious posts. Where is the need to inform the community four times that you've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, etc? Please try to be concise and don't wear out readers and opponents. It's not true, as you profess to believe, that you need to repeat yourself ad nauseam because your opponent "obviously cannot read".[40] Such a contemptuous dismissal, together with contradictorily accusing Flyer of being "the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki"[41] is far into trolling territory. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

I would add that such meatpuppetry can be counter-productive. I mentioned below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination). If people hadn't gone on claiming that a source that clearly existed did not exist then we could have moved the discussion on to whether the sources, only one of which was substantial, demonstrate notability, when I might well have come down on the side of deletion. As it is I got so exasperated by the antics of the meatpuppets that I didn't wish to spend any time on the discussion apart from correcting blatant lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: community sanctions for Michael Jackson topics

Problems are evident even in this discussion. I propose that community sanctions be implemented in a manner similar to Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict. It would be desirable to start by drafting suitable wording before any !vote. Should sanctions include the following? Anything else?

1. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles related to Michael Jackson to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.
2. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on any talk page for the duration of an RfC related to the topic provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

Point 1 is on the theory that there may not be a need to pre-emptively prohibit edits by non-ECP users—instead, an admin could apply that remedy if there is reason to believe meatpuppetry has occurred. Bear in mind that it does not matter whether a particular editor is or is not a meatpuppet, what counts is whether they act in the way that a meatpuppet would—excessive contributions from such users is damaging.

Point 2 is likely to be controversial since many believe talk pages should be open to all, and discussion closers should not be swayed by me-too votes. However, I pointed out above that a significant number of accounts were created in 2019 with the obvious intention of promoting a fan-based POV in discussions on talk pages. Any thoughts on how to handle that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is to draft the wording—no !votes yet thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Minor nitpickings, ...less than 30 days tenure respectively... and ...meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry... --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks, I inserted "or sockpuppetry". However, I might be missing something but I don't see how "respectively" is useful. Is that to help with the clumsy "by IP editors or by accounts"? Does anyone have ideas on briefly cleaning that? Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Unfortunately no better wording, I believe you can remove to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, altogether. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a proposed set of sanctions taken to ArbCom and given their blessing, possibly as an extension of BLP (since many of those affected by the edits are still alive, and the fact that the nexus of the dispute is deceased is really standing in the way of fixing that). That way standard DS alerting and enforcement can be used. Otherwise we can simply RfC 30/500 protection and/or consensus required on this and other articles I reckon. Guy (help!) 12:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  GS has an identical alerting system (see {{Gs/alert}}). --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. If someone will show me diffs of inappropriate editing on a Jackson related article I will look into it, as would any admin. I'm not comfortable, though, with the idea of preemptively protecting an article. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not pre-emptive though, anything related to MJ is absolutely trainwrecked with a barrage of SPAs, most of who are not aware of policy and the ones aware engage in endless wikilawyering. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: What about the situation described in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above? There is no bad edit to look at, just the fact that established editors have to debate issues relating to NPOV and DUE with a large stream of SPAs created specifically for the purpose of supporting one side of a disagreement. The idea was to only protect if considered necessary, not pre-emptively. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  "established editors have to debate issues". Nobody has to debate; people can chose to get involved in editorial discussions if they wish. As I understand it, part of the concerns here are over an editorial disagreement over inclusion of mention of the Leaving Nevermind documentary. Our protection policy says: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." The discussion as regards what weight to give the Leaving Nevermind documentary appears to be a valid content dispute with valid arguments on both sides. Applying semi-protection to keep out the newer editors in favour of less weight being given to that documentary is explicitly forbidden by policy. What is needed is someone to come here with actual diffs of inappropriate edits. I don't mean a list of articles, I mean actual diffs as evidence. Statements that someone has edited an article, but without showing us those actual edits, is not evidence of bad doing, but simply evidence of editing. Show us the concerning edits, and we can deal with the individuals. Show us the pattern of inappropriate edits by multiple new and/or IP editors to a particular article and we can semi-protect that article. There may well be some kind of coordinated plan to remove legitimate content from the Jackson articles, but this discussion so far is not showing that, and if this were brought to ArbCom without a) appropriate evidence of wrong-doing and b) more evidence of the community having attempted and failed to deal with it, then it would likely be rejected. SilkTork (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I know what the protection policy says—that's why a special sanction would be required for something different to cope with an unusual situation. I have participated in disputes with a stream of SPAs and it wastes a lot of time and energy, however I've never seen anything as bad as the SPAs in this case. It's not satisfactory to say that the established editors don't have to waste their time because they can leave the topic for the SPAs—that would solve the dispute but would not be good for content. Diffs would just show a new editor posting a good-faith comment to support the position of other SPAs so perhaps there is no solution. Arbcom has to follow a more bureaucratic path than a community discussion so I don't see them as being a fix. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  In this current situation, there is a discussion to remove mention of Leaving Neverland from the lead of Michael Jackson. Ask an uninvolved admin or Crat to look at the discussion when seven days have passed to close it one way or the other (I would close it but I took part in the previous discussion and gave my view). That seems an appropriate course of action, and doesn't involve a more lengthy process or involve more of the community than is required or enforce a restriction on unregistered editors who wish to edit those articles legitimately (which is a separate concern from persistent inappropriate editing of Jackson articles, which isn't the claim here, but which would legitimately prompt semi-protection - which I am willing to do if people bring to me some diffs). SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I am also prepared to sanction any editor who is making inappropriate edits to the Jackson article if diffs are supplied. Though I will not sanction an editor for voicing an opinion in the debate, unless such an opinion involves personal attacks or other inappropriate behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, there are a lot of POV edits that I could point to that show problems, including those documented at Talk:Leaving Neverland. See this section I started there about these edits I reverted. These edits, made by this SPA, consisted of the editor altering text away from what the sources state, ungrammatical wording, adding "allegedly" after every other word (when per WP:Claim, we should be careful with "allegedly" and "claim"), other POV wording, removing valid wikilinks, adding "citation needed" instead of Template:Citation needed and when the content it was added for wasn't unsourced. Here is another POV edit I reverted; this one was made to the Neverland Ranch article by the latest Awardmaniac sock. Awardmaniac will return, which is why Yamla stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." I only made the "See also" compromise I made there so that I wouldn't have to waste time on an obvious Jackson-oriented SPA. Is that article's quality better by having Leaving Neverland mentioned in the See also section as opposed to being in the article's text? And here at the Trial of Michael Jackson article, you can see me fixing WP:Editorializing/POV.

Debating with newbie editors whose sole purpose is to defend Jackson's legacy is a waste of time. They apply our rules inappropriately/inaccurately and are always about what they feel makes Jackson look best. And they can overwhelm discussions, as others (for example, The Blade of the Northern Lights) have noted of this very thread. And they can influence discussions. What is the point of starting RfCs at Talk:Michael Jackson, for example, when those RfCs are going to be dominated by editors who are only there to defend Jackson? If anyone is to note that some or most of the participants are SPAs, that person is likely to be pointed to WP:Assume good faith. In that case, the most the editor can probably do is add Template:Single-purpose account beside the SPA accounts per the WP:Meatpuppetry policy. Yes, RfC arguments should be based on strength of arguments, but we all know that it's not unheard of for RfCs to partly come down to head counts, especially if the one closing the discussion is not familiar with the topic. And these SPAs currently outnumber non-Jackson fans who keep fan-skewed edits out. The solution is certainly not to just put up with debating these SPAs just to maintain the neutrality and quality of the Jackson articles, or throwing our hands up and leaving the Jackson articles to them. And any notion that these SPAs may turn into legitimate editors whose focus is not primarily on protecting Jackson's legacy can be challenged by simply looking at the accounts that have been used for months to mainly or solely focus on protecting Jackson's legacy or celebrating his music accomplishments, whether sporadically or consistently. I don't consider disputes involving established editors vs. meatpuppets to be valid content disputes, especially when the meatpuppets are misapplying our policies and/or guidelines. Like WP:Meatpuppetry states, "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. [...] A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.' " And there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• If there is consensus, I would it applied to all large cultural icon articles where the talk page is heavily influenced by fans. I have seen fans at work in more than a few large cultural icon articles. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support Johnuniq's wording and the proposal. Community sanctions are definitely warranted, due to the already evident gaming the system by Jackson fanatics/fans; such behavior on the internet is so bad it has been reported on in the media. We are not a bureaucracy; we can do this as a community and without needing ArbCom to 'pass legislation'. Time to be proactive and not reactive. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• WP:RFAR. I tend to agree with JzG: this should be taken to ArbCom, with a request for standard discretionary sanctions. If such a case is accepted by the committee, the stricter rules for input at evidence and workshop pages would insure that everybody can be heard, and prevent the kind of bludgeoning and repetitiousness Israell has been subjecting this AN thread to. Meanwhile, do we really need an RfC to apply 30/500 protection to Michael Jackson-related pages? The normal rule for persistent disruption is that semiprotection should be tried first, and 30/500 can be used if semi turns out to be insufficient. Can't we simply follow those steps? Also, while protecting talkpages is best avoided if possible, off-wiki coordination is one of the situations that call for it. Johnuniq's striking list of edit counts by new editors who have edited Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325) does strongly suggest that that page needs semi-protection at the least. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).
• While we're at it, is there some reason not to block the SPAs that have made such a giant mess of the discussions above? I'd be fine with semiprotecting the talkpages and articles (I've semi'd talkpages before, it really shouldn't be a big deal), but blocking the existing accounts causing this mess also has to be part of any effective solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  I see no issue expanding this to a community-authorized GS, which would give administrators more leeway to block the accounts responsible for the disruption. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Example wording:

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

--qedk (t 桜 c) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is better than my wording. Do you want to start a new section with a proposal using that text? Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Done now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that two posts by TruthGuardians (incl. his vote) were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=930957084&oldid=930956693 Israell (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Two posts full of insults by TruthGuardians were removed, indeed, and the user was blocked for ongoing insults, harassment, lack of good faith, and accusations of...well, look here. Israell, if you wish to defend such remarks, you are skating on very thin ice. You have already been warned about your own behavior: defending the comments by TruthGuardians (what a telling name) is just as inappropriate and blockable. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) (account created 9 June 2019) is the editor with 325 edits mentioned in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above. It's good when a small number of fans contribute in an area of interest, but it is not reasonable when a significant number of single-purpose accounts dominate discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I totally disagree with all of this, and I am honest. TruthGuardians is of good faith, and he's the one that was repeatedly bullied during his tenure on Wikipedia (Partytemple agrees). Maybe you disapprove of his choice of words, but he never lacked good faith. Israell (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Some examples of off-wiki canvassing with relation to pages about Michael Jackson on Wikipedia:-

• [42] (archive.is/Q2r0R) "The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page needs to be corrected. It’s full of mistruths and distorted facts....."
• [43] (archive.is/10Q8G) "A new wiki page on Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson needs input - Join the page and be a contributor..."
• [44] (archive.is/D3xxs) "Someone has completely edited MJ's vitiligo entry to try and post as much biased information about Michael and vitiligo as possible, can fans get together and fix this?"

Off-wiki canvassing is absolutely rampant. It seems that these editors are exhausting patience of just everyone who deals with them and the post by Flyer22 Reborn confirms one of such experiences. A few months ago there was an ANI thread[45] which led the topic ban on one user and final warning for another user. None of these measures have worked out. It is not that Michael Jackson is a contentious subject but the editors who are mostly attracted to edit these articles are mostly those come with unusual backgrounds they don't have enough understanding about WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FANCRUFT and rest of the other guidelines that play important role in deciding the fate of the article and in fact that they are not really able to write a few meaningful sentences in the English language which makes it very hard for others to spoon-feed these editors. They believe they have valid justifications for their POV edits, one of them includes their frequent comparison of irrelevant articles with the articles of this subject. What I propose is that we must support 500/30 restriction and topic ban a bunch of problematic editors who have proven history of disruptive editing in this subject. Excelse (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose semi-protection. That said, and this is my observation, MJ-related articles have only gotten better ever since a group of editors (incl. Hammelsmith I do not always agree with, one of most polite editors I've ever come across), have gotten together to improve the articles. Attempting to silence a whole group of "pro-MJ editors" is objectionable. It's just like political articles. Attempting to silence all "pro-Trump/pro-Tommy Robinson/pro-Alex Jones and so on" editors is not the way to build an encyclopedia.

As documented above w/ evidence, a plot by anti-MJ fans to "take over the LN Wiki by any means necessary" was uncovered. It is incorrect to pretend only MJ fans have their eyes on Wiki. Canvassing is forbidden, but mentioning problems w/ certain Wiki articles is not. There was indeed a problem w/ a number of articles, and they were greatly improved these past months.

And I'd like to direct your attention to this tweet by Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew: There is a lot of false info on the Michael Jackson Wiki page that is wrong and proven false. @Wikipedia what are the steps to correct this?[46]

You'll notice that he did not ask MJ fans and admirers to rush to Wiki and make it a fansite! He directly asked Wikipedia what are the steps to correct false information. There is nothing objectionable about that. The Michael Jackson Wikipedia article is one of the most viewed page in the world! It is a fact that false information was posted, and it had to be addressed. And yes, there was POV-pushing on both sides, and all I want is fairness and accuracy. Israell (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

See: [47]. Just hours ago, a brand-new account nominated (on their second edit) the Charles Thomson article for deletion, an eight year-old article at that! This is a clear as rock water example of POV-pushing by possible anti-MJ meatpuppets. My point is, editors should not be demonized for "liking" MJ or not; what matters is fairness, accuracy and abiding by this site's rules. Israell (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the Hammelsmith commentary above, one should look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Hammelsmith. Israell's views on Hammelsmith there certainly contrast their commentary on Hammelsmith above. The "I do not always agree with" comment is an understatement. Regarding the Taj Jackson post mentioned above, I've been with the Michael Jackson article for years, and I don't know what "a lot of false info" Taj Jackson was referring to. Either way, that post no doubt brought a lot of editors to Wikipedia to "correct" the Michael Jackson article and other Jackson articles. It matters not if he intended for that to happen. It's widely known that Twitter accounts with many followers influence people and can cause followers to get riled up and head to whatever site to support the cause of the Twitter poster and/or their own related cause. This is why people have been accused of using their Twitter followers to influence matters on other sites, including harassment of people. It's why some Twitter influences (including celebrities) do not (on Twitter) mention the names of people they may be in dispute with, because they don't want their followers going and harassing people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the contrast. Hammelsmith is indeed one of the most polite editors I've come across on Wiki. I remember an exchange I had w/ them on a talk page, and they were very gentle in their response. Other editors and I had issues w/ their many edits we found to be disruptive, their disregard for warnings and possible bias, but I've always found them to be polite in their interactions with us. And yes, I do not always agree with them, but I do approve of some of their edits, so I fail to see the understatement.

Now, here's what happening. A brand-new user that went by Uranarse[48], on their second edit, nominated the Charles Thomson article for deletion. The template clearly stated: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." So did I. The template also clearly stated: "If this template is removed, do not replace it."

That user went on to replace it, saying: "Page marked for deletion, should not be removed without discussion." I once more removed the template, saying: "Uranarse, you were not supposed to replace the template I removed. The template says: “If this template is removed, do not replace it.”"

And guess what? They removed it again, telling me: "You have not followed the guidelines of fixing the bio to make it notable. You are edit warring." I tried on their talk page to make them understand that "or" is the keyword ("You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.), but obviously, they would not understand. They then pinged me on the Charles Thomson talk page with the same undue remark, and I had no choice but explain it all over again.

I then contacted an admin who took care of the matter and blocked them citing WP:ATTACKNAME. The admin also removed the template and confirmed to me that did I remove it myself, I would not have broken the three-revert rule 'cause a challenged prod is not supposed to be replaced. And I suspect Uranarse to be a sockpuppet of Jude1313. This is another clear example of disruption coming from the anti-MJ camp. There should be no disruption from either camps. Israell (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on establishing general sanctions on the topic of Michael Jackson, broadly construed

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

---

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

There is ample evidence above that meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry (including off-wiki canvassing) is rampant in this topic area and as things stand, it is impossible to prevent disruption by taking care of accounts one at a time, thus making more stringent measures necessary. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notify past participants
@Flyer22 Reborn, Popcornduff, Johnuniq, Serial Number 54129, SilkTork, Israell, Berean Hunter, Zusammenprall, Scope creep, Lugnuts, Moxy, Crossroads, Bishonen, JzG, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Excelse: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes please. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve of semi-protection. Israell (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I am currently going through the articles to see if they need semi-protection. I am only able to do it when I have a free moment, so its slow, but I've looked at Michael Jackson's Boys. It was legitimately redirected once (there were no sources, and it was a stub that didn't assert notability), legitimately nominated for deletion twice (notability is questionable, despite being the focus of an academic article), and was once inappropriately blanked, a blanking that was reverted within 60 seconds. There is no vandalism. I'm not seeing protection as justified for a page that has been subject to one inappropriate edit in eleven months. I have done some minor editing on it to improve unclear or incorrect statements. I am now looking at Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and I hope to do the others that Flyer listed by the end of the day. Until we have appropriate evidence of multiple users coordinating to edit the Jackson articles inappropriately, I'm not in favour of any blanket solutions. I'll report back when I've finished looking at the articles. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have semi-protected Health and appearance of Michael Jackson due to a long history of inappropriate IP edits. There were a few positive IP edits in the period I looked, but these were often simply reverting negative edits by IP editors. I saw some editorial disagreements, and reverting by some editors, mostly Flyer, but these seemed mostly within normal editorial parameters, and the reverted edits were often giving more weight to the use of the creams than is appropriate from what we can determine from reliable sources, but weren't pro-Jackson, don't appear to be coordinated, and though sub-optimal, were not sanctionable or particularly concerning. Editors seem to have the article under control. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wade Robson already has pending changes protection. SilkTork (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to QEDK for the ping. We ought to be proactive when it comes to articles with a high likelihood of touching BLP (Jackson of course is dead, but much of the PoV pushing and meatpuppetry concerns the living). I support this measure as proposed. ——SN54129 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support the proposal. I stated more above. With that comment, I stated, in part, that there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above this section. Although the main subject is not WP:BLP, it should be still noted that MJ fans have frequently violated WP:BLPs while touting Michael Jackson. One example is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson which has seen frequent violations of WP:BLPCAT and here, MJ fans falsely claim just any popular celebrity to have been influenced by Michael Jackson. Excelse (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sheesh, support. Looking at this discussion alone, as an uninvolved editor I see that it's obvious something has to be done. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing, non-neutral editing, and related abusive behavior documented above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the clear evidence and reasons given by me and others above (including preceding the RfC). But in a nutshell, the online POV pushing done by Jackson fanatics is so bad it has been reported on in the media, concrete off-site evidence of doing so in relation to Wikipedia has been linked above, and we've seen it occur here on Wikipedia. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have any particular interest in Michael Jackson, apart from recognising that he was very popular as a performer and a songwriter, but I happen to have got involved in two deletion discussions about related topics, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination), where people turned up and tried to derail the discussions with blatant lies, such as calling two sources one and saying that an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as well as a single-purpose editor, who had, apart from creating a user page, had done nothing previously apart from a few edits to a copyright-violating article about Michael Jackson, removing the template saying that this was a single-purpose editor. This is clearly a topic area where people who have no interest in building an encyclopedia come here to push their point of view, so something needs to be done to prevent that, and this looks like the best way to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am persuaded. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support When a dozen new accounts with no other edits are created solely to pile-on in a talk page, something unusual is required. The sanctions do not have to be used, and if an admin overdoes it with protection, they can be asked for a change, or overruled in a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support the proposal as stated. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
• Support. I've had a look through some of these articles, and we really do need GS here. Take, for example, the hagiography that is Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, where Jackson's eccentricities are explained away with a whole paragraph written by a musicologist, and the issues with children are reduced to one sentence, which is "some of the public did not believe an innocuous relationship between Jackson and children, despite the evidence of wrongdoing being slim (and at times ludicrous) and the evidence of extortion being strong.", sourced to that same book. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite. You might have seen, but issues with that piece were addressed on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support The amount of accusations and counter accusations reminds me of WP:GS/MMA and WP:EEML so I will endorse regimes that show account holders whose purpose is not the improvement of WP the cold shoulder/door. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support The evidence of ongoing widespread disruption of MJ topic area articles organized off-Wikipedia is persuasive. Administrators need the tools to bring the disruption under control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support – the promotion, NPOV violations, canvassing, and other frequent disruption caused by fans of Michael Jackson needs better counter-measures. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 03:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - considering the amount of controversy he has been in (both in life and in death), as well as other sources of disruption, it would be wise to prevent further issues with general sanctions - whatever we decide those sanctions shall entail. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Make that change – gonna make a difference, gonna make it right. – Levivich 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Request quick action via WP:SNOWBALL. A week with no objections...make it happen ASAP. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Just pointing to this comment by an SPA in case anyone missed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This whole thing is starting to make me wonder about the weight we are giving to the "living" part of BLP policy. I'm starting to think that maybe, in this current era of celebrity (and the continued reporting and marketing thereof, and in deference to people "associated" with the person in question - family, friends, business associates, etc.), that even after a person's passing, that we may need to have some policy in place in which BLP could be determined to apply to topics concerning certain individuals (as a central topic hub, as it were), even if they happen to no longer be alive. - jc37 17:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems and Essential Tasks

Hello, I am attempting to create an article for the book: The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks, by Vietnamese President, Le Duan. Whenever I attempt to start the article I get this message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

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

Thank you." I made a request before to give me permission to create this article, but editing is still blocked so I am not sure what to do. Thanks! Jp16103 14:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lol Jp16103, the filter thinks that you're accusing someone of having ...mental Problems  :) ——SN54129 15:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the Scunthorpe problem is still alive and kicking. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit the redirect The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks that Zzuuzz created for you the last time you asked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If the edit filter is preventing people from creating pages with the phrase "fundamental problem" in it, that should probably be adjusted, no? – Levivich 17:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure we have people adept enough at writing edit filters to fix this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, it's actually the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that's blocking this page creation; somebody was creating orphaned talk pages like [49], see [50] for more background. Home Lander (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed using a word boundary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior - personal attacks

This is to report user Recuros who is pushing his opinion (please see his initial edit to add more variety to the article's alternative names) based on one source into a featured article. I left a message on his talk page explaining the purpose of alternative naming and after he had personally attacked me by attempting to insult my intelligence. He later backed his continued reverting by an edit comment to teach me what vandalism is. As a veteran of 13 years I'm very vexed by this behavior. I have kept away from articles that are a source or polemic in order not to encounter people pushing agendas to be met now with someone arguing with me over an article subject's alternative name. Talking to Recuros did not work. I was hoping to convince him but I keep being met with insolence. I don't want to get into an edit war over something so meaningless but I am still adamant that his addition is not helpful and is based on his personal preference and one source. PS I have provided a link on his talk page that the adjective in question is almost never used and is not used in the context of naming the articles' subject. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As a veteran of 13 years you should know that any section about another editor opened on this page means you have to inform that editor about the thread. I have done so here User talk:Recruos#ANI notice. MarnetteD|Talk 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD I haven't used this before, thank you for kindly doing that for me ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to MarnetteD for informing me about this thread. To Elias Z., as far as I know, the formulation "school of Roman law at Berytus" is not to be found in literature of any sort, for good reason as it sounds bizarre and ungainly. However, you have been removing "Berytan school" which is sourced and attested, as is "Berytian law school". Contrary to what you claim, the terms Berytian, Berytan, and Berytean have been of common use in English since at least two centuries, as adjectives for things or people relating to the ancient city of Berytus and as demonyms for the people. Featured article status does not validate unattested topic names nor does it bar general improvement of articles in accordance with our featured article criteria. Recruos (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: Also, please explain what "personal attacks" I have made against you. Recruos (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Recruos and Elie plus, please don't waste your time or the time of readers of this page debating the content issue about which you disagree. This thread (which should probably be at ANI rather than at AN, if anywhere) is about conduct issues only.

• Recruos, the edit summary accompanying this edit of yours accuses Elie plus of vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning at WP: quoting WP:VAND, it is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. That page further advises that [i]f it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good-faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia. The two of you disagree and should be holding a discussion on the article's talk page, but you both appear to be editing in line with the purpose of WP and in good faith, so mentions of vandalism should be avoided. In addition, the edit summary here makes reference to Elie plus' competence in English that was unhelpful and unnecessary, and it clearly upset or irritated Elie plus. Please focus your comments on edits rather than commenting about the editor who made them.
• Elie plus, these posts to Recruos' user talk page might have been better split into a post to the article talk page on the content issue and a post on just the tone issue to Recruos directly. In addition, your comments are somewhat hyperbolic. You wrote that I encourage you to maintain some level of civility and self-respect and not to engage in personal attacks. Attempting to belittle others' intellect never ends well. i hope I wont' have to take this trifling dispute over a word to arbitration. I suggest to you that this is a disproportionate response and a highly exaggerated characterisation of Recruos' unnecessary comment... and I am certain that ArbCom would decline to look at such a small behavioural incident and would not rule on the content issue.
• Both of you, this is not worth your time. Go and start an article talk page discussion. Seek a third opinion if necessary. Stop the low-level incivility. Happy Editing! EdChem (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks EdChem. Anything to put this behind; it's really not worth my time. However I ask for Recruos not to use abrasive language and making things unpleasant in the future. I was especially vexed because I researched the subject, started the article and drove it to FA which was not easy at all; yet said person accused me of vandalism and belittled my language skills and contributions. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request: Steverci

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

---

Steverci (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steverci/Archive

Steverci has submitted the following appeal:

Dear Wikipedians, I humbly ask that you consider my appeal for my editing sanctions. In the past I hadn't bothered to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia and just wanted to aggressively push how I wanted certain pages to look, whether by getting into edit wars or by making extra accounts. I have put off making this appeal for a long time to make sure I truly return to editing Wikipedia with a new mindset so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. I have extensively studied WP:CONS, WP:DR, WP:EQ, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:SOCK, and other similar pages to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. My block has allowed me the time to reflect on what I did was wrong and that the administration was right to impose sanctions on my account because of my behavior. I now believe the sanctions are no longer necessary because I have a completely different outlook from what I had years ago. I now understand that Wikipedia isn't a battleground to fight with others but an encyclopedia that users work together to improve. I promise that I will not resort to sock puppeting anymore and I will work on building consensus with other users instead of edit warring. Thank you for taking the time to read this appeal, and I hope you all will consider giving me the chance to prove the genuineness of my words by editing Wikipedia productively once again. --Steverci (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No socking seen, and no objections as a CU if someone else unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Releavant SPI Archive linked(and sad that @TonyBallioni: didn't link this directly). Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

All relevant links are on the userpage, I mean. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hold Presented as is, I'm heartened to see that socking is no longer on the table, however I think in light of the topic area that this user had interest in (Armenia-Azerbaijan) and WP:ARBAA, we might want to impose a topic ban on Armenia and Azerbaijan topics widely construed to let the editor come in and see what they will do in less contentious topic areas. Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also relevant (on the user's talk page) is a declined unblock request that was declined for lack of action by administrators for over 2 weeks. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't get the relevance. What does that signify?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: An unblock request that lies for 2 weeks without being dealt with by any administrator (even if procedurally acknowledging it) suggests that there was no interest in statusing it. If we could get one of the admins who reviewed it and declined to take action to explain their reasoning (a stretched reading of WP:ADMINACCT) it would help us understand why. Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse SO with conditions - while the unblock appeal reads distinctly like saying what it's expected we want to hear, since I've seen appeals refused for not following that path I'm not inclined to reject on those grounds. It's been more than long enough for the standard offer to apply, given no socking identified by the CUs, I'm willing to give him a go. Hasteur's suggested TBANs seem reasonable, unless Steverci has any particular reason why they shouldn't be off limits for the first 6 months? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse SO unblock (with or without conditions) per WP:ROPE. Miniapolis 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with conditions. Steverci's indefinite topic ban on all topics pertaining to Armenia is still in force, as far as I can tell--see Callanecc's note here). (I assume Azerbaijan is covered under that as well?) I support keeping that in place, because duh, but also because it will be an opportunity for Steverci to prove good behavior, by abiding by it and then asking for it to be lifted, if they desire, in three months. There was a 1R for Turkey as well--I *think* Callanecc dropped that requirement later. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2015#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 it looks like the topic ban was reduced to 1RR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  NVM, didn't see entry at the bottom of the log. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with conditions per Nosebagbear, Drmies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support, with conditions per Drmies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

2001:4451:809:3B00:295B:4558:46DE:C77E block evasion

This IP has been making the same vandalism this morning, rapidly adding things about anyone being able to edit articles. (See [51]) as an example. The same IP keeps getting blocked but it just sprouts up again a few minutes later, with the same IP somehow. Is there a way to block the entire Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., for an hour or so, just to get them to find a more productive hobby? Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) If we're going to attempt a range block, we need more than one IP, to calculate the range. (2) Activity seems to have stopped. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked their /64 range for a month. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I used to dread IPv6. But /64 generally is but a single editor, so it's easier. Also, I start low and work my way up till I have a good idea at what range will be most effective with least collateral damage. -- Deepfriedokra 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh Police are threatening legal action against vandals for defacing their Wiki page

• Uttar Pradesh Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Background: Citizenship Amendment Act protests#Uttar_Pradesh is ongoing and UP has seen most number of violent incidents in India.

Please see their tweet threatening police action here from the official twitter handle. Screenshot here. The vandalism has already been reverted by our vandal monitors and User:331dot has semi protected the page till 5 January.
Bringing this to noticeboard, if anything else needs to be done here, (maybe some kind of edit notice), since this is a serious Legal threat.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats that are off-wiki are beyond our purview. El_C 10:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can do nothing as long as they don't make threats on Wikipedia itself(which they could certainly have made a conscious choice to avoid doing). 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked at older edits and realised that there’re indeed some defamatory edits on the page. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the article was vandalized and an editor representing that police agency would be permitted to remove it. An edit was made that did the reverse(said that the agency was "the finest" IIRC) so I removed that. Some other vandalism went on(apparently the fact that this agency was created under British rule bothers at least some people there) so I protected the article. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot, how user contacted you? And which one? Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I don't know if any user is actually a representative of the UP Police, and I could not publicly out them if I did- but I responded to a noticeboard post that pointed out the tweet (noted above) by the police. I posted a COI notice to the user Patroitwarrior, as they removed the offending material, but I don't know if they are a police representative or not. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot, username seems so. Anyway, work is done. If disruption continues then we can take them to ECP. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SonicClub and sources

Take a look at User talk:SonicClub and you will see numerous, repeated messages to this user about copyright violations, plagiarism, and adding sources. Over and over again, he refuses to comply or even engage. Usually, I would just request this person be blocked but he claims to be a younger teen and I hope that there can be some mentoring or guidance provided here. Can someone help? This is just constant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 72 hrs for persistent disruptive editing. There is evidence of edit warring by other parties as well. But even a casual glance at SC's contrib log and their talk page is indicative of a long term pattern of disruptive editing and refusal to engage with other editors. IMO a block is justified. I have also warned them that if this resumes once the current block expires, the next one is likely to be indefinite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Thanks but to be clear, I'm interested in seeing if anyone feels like he can reach out to this editor or provide me any pointers on how to engage him: he simply refuses to post to any talk page or respond to threads on his own, so does that essentially mean that there's nothing to do here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: That's perfectly fine and a laudable goal. But their behavior has been quite dreadful with lots of WP:IDHT and refusal to engage. Enough people have reached out only to be confronted with deafening silence. For now the block is only 72hrs. If someone can get them to start communicating and they indicate they understand why they have been blocked and that they will desist in their disruptive behavior, I would be more than happy to lift their block early. Carry on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've have declined their unblock request. They labored under the misapprehension that they were blocked for editing The Midnight Snack and Tom & Jerry Kids, despite Ad Orientem's clear explanation. rather than for " edit warring, repeatedly adding poorly or completely unsourced material, and personal attacks on other editors." I have in my decline laid out clear instructions for unblocking. I am not optimistic.-- Deepfriedokra 02:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, All of us were 14 once and I think that User:SonicClub has chosen a good hobby for someone his age--I'm really excited to see his contributions as long as he can stick with the purpose of some of our more bedrock rules. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We've had a crat who was 15 at the time, so age makes no difference to me. If age causes a user to not contribute in an constructive manner, then perhaps they should wait till they are more mature. The question here is whether or not he can take in what has been shared with him. Regardless of chronological age, contributing in a collaborative manner is essential. We can only hope that whatever learning block he has can be overcome. Perhaps if someone good with children could nestle him under their wing.-- Deepfriedokra 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Walled garden of hoax articles

Huge walled garden of hoax material here that somehow escaped untouched since 2007. The Deadweights, White Jimmy, First Wave Complete Destruction, The Deadweights (album), Crisis (The Deadweights album), Prophecies of Beautiful Regression, Recalled to Life (album), Animosity (The Deadweights album), New Oldspeak, Look at This Mess!, and From the Age of Doublethink. Clearly nonexistant albums claiming bogus Billboard chart positions, no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or letssingit.com. Would an admin be interested in curating these at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has taken care of this mess. Thanks to everyone who found this and helped. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As much as I like Jimmy White, is there a reason for the redirect from White Jimmy? I can't imagine it's a feasible search term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've nomindated it for R3 speedy deletion - we'll see what more experienced admins decide. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa and Lee Vilenski: When I created the redirect, I thought it could be a reasonable thing. But it didn't end up being like it, so I added a G7 from myself to help speed the process. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work TenPoundHammer. Britishfinance (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Range block assist

Hi all, rangeblocks aren't exactly my forte. Can someone please assist? I've done simple /64 range blocks on a couple of these IPs, but these are some of the ones I've seen problems with:

• 2405:204:4208:1de0:79e3:ae7d:ecb:3ace
• 2409:4060:402:cfaf:45b2:cafe:a3c5:1f91
• 2409:4060:402:cfaf:de1c:ca68:9ea6:e8c5
• 2409:4060:2089:d590:ee90:41bb:de0b:a59f

If I'm interpreting the rangecalc tool, I can't block all of these in one fell swoop. For scope, this user has been making disruptive edits since about August 2019. Here's one of the early ones. You can see the sloppiness. Also here. Lately they've been taking to adding presumably false information to articles. Most of their edits have edit summaries like "Ok" "Ook" and "Oook". You can get a better sense of it by looking at this /32 contribution history. Anyway, if someone can help figure out some reasonable ranges to block, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, just discovered this account, so May 2019 might be when they started, if anyone cares. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the ISP is Jio, the IPs are mobile network meaning they'll constantly change, so it is going to be pretty much impossible to rangeblock without lots of collateral. I'd say rangeblocking Special:Contributions/2409:4060:402:cfaf:45b2:cafe:a3c5:1f91/64 for 3 months is somewhat excessive since the IP the person uses will change fairly quickly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I appreciate your feedback. Since I didn't see any other edits from that /64 range, or from the other /64 range I blocked, that led me to think it wasn't heavily used, and I get the sense that /64 collateral is typically minimal, per WP:/64. That said, if anybody wants to adjust the block to something more reasonable, I would not object. This is why I came here. I've also semi-protected some of those articles, but left a few honeypots open. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, rangeblocks of that ISP, or of Indian ISPs in general, are usually ineffective. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

From a quick look at some of the 500 edits from the /32 range mentioned above by User:Cyphoidbomb, it looks to be nearly all vandalism. Though good faith editors might conceivably want to participate from that /32, it does not seem like they are at the moment. Nearly all of those 500 edits have been reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yeah, there is a stunning amount of vandalism and incompetent editing. I suppose I should consider DoRD's note above, unless someone thinks a /32 block is reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Does consensus trump policy?

Example: a tv show with an enormous fanbase (like, Doctor Who) has an episode where an item appears as an unidentified, trivial part of the episode. The primary source doesn't note it. Neither before nor after the episode is the item identified by anyone associated with the cast, crew or studio.
However, the fanbase jumps on the item as intrinsic to an understanding of the episode, idnetifying it based solely upon their preexisting knowledge as a fan.
My need for guidance arises from the fact that plot summaries are drawn solely from the primary source (ie. the episode content itself). These same people seeking to fan-identify the item point to sources that also identify the item. I think that these sources can easily be incorporated into an article about the episode, but can't be in a plot summary about the show, since identifying the item imparts a plot point that was not provided by the primary source itself. It feels like Synthesis, in that the editor is adding information from one source and using it to draw a connection to something viewed in a tv episode (the primary source).
Help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus cannot trump policy, though interpretations of policy may very. Consensus is determined by weighing the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy.-- Deepfriedokra 01:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I figured out the discussion of question from Jack's recent contributions and commented on the specific question there. But agree that consensus cannot override policy. Policy does has some wiggle room that consensus can work in, but that doesn't mean completely overriding the policy. --Masem (t) 02:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the interpretation of policy that allows plot summaries to be cited to the work itself, thereby allowing fans/editors to write plot "mini essays" on fictional works based only on having viewed/read the work of entertainment. But that seems to be the current consensus, based on the assumption that crowdsourcing will yield neutrality and accuracy over time. Arguments in favor of including trivia based on the obsessions of people commenting on unreliable online fansites ought to be rejected out of hand. Only sources widely agreed to be genuinely reliable should inform our content decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree to that, Cullen; in almost every case where there is an interpretive issue as to what actually happens in a plot, you rely on consensus to find the fairly objective reality of what happened. That is not the case here. The other editors were adding their personal fan knowledge to add something that was never stated, identified or used as a major plot point in the primary source. That's a very different situation, imo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

On a philosophical note, technically consensus can trump policy, that's essentially what IAR is. In the case of the Doctor Who example, the issue sounds more like a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, in which case the answer is unequivocally no, the local group of editors working on a specific article or set of articles cannot refuse to comply with policy that other editors are requesting that they adhere to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:INUNIVERSE is probably relevant here. As a complete anorak I think you should just mention that this is a situation at The Mandalorian and not bring our resident Time Lord into it. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I was deliberately obscuring the article so as to avoid the ppearance of looking for allies in talk. I just wanted to make sure I was on solid ground with my understanding of the relevant policies. Everyone was all, "but of course this is a minor thingie from largely non-canon material that showed up in an animated series once," and I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness of Endor, without even a protocol droid to assist (or K-9). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus sets policy , but it cannot trump an existing policy, imho. BTW I think this is the issue Jack's talking about . Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, since the question has been asked: further to what Cullen328 says, our policy on verifiability says quite unambiguously that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The fact that there is (I believe) some local consensus somewhere that a work can be used as a source for itself does not, can not, over-ride that policy, which is one of our five pillars. If there's to be a plot summary, policy requires that it be supported by independent reliable sources, and in theory it can be removed if it isn't. In my opinion, the sooner we make a start on that the better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the guidance at WP:FILMPLOT we can write the plot-part of the article based on the the work itself. It often works fairly well, but sometimes people disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's one local consensus which can't over-ride our actual policy; I'm sure there are others, because we have the same problem with books, TV serials and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me that WP:FILMPLOT should be considered WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which specifically mentions guidelines), or that having a plotsection per WP:FILMPLOT by default makes an article not "based on reliable, independent, published sources". Some use of primary sources does not disqualify for example The Mandalorian from existing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It is well established - not sure exactly where but the point has come up multiple times as to be documented at WP:WAF - that when doing a plot summary of any creative work, be it film, book, TV show, etc. that the work itself is assumed to be the primary source and does not necessary explicit citing unless quotes are included or there are details that the average consumer of the work may miss (in this latter case, this is often the case in video games where parts of the plot may not be seen by the player if they fail to take certain actions). Plots however cannot engage in interpretation, which is the base issue at the page of concern that this discussion stemmed from. --Masem (t) 15:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, no, it doesn't. But there's a whole bunch of places where exactly this occurs. Take Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons) - or dozens of similar articles - a long list of occasions when something has been mentioned in 'in-universe' sources, without a single instance of an out-of-universe reference to it.... The Land (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons) seems like a good Afd candidate to me. The Mummy (1932 film), not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed, but it doesn't override existing policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

How can WP:CONSENSUS not override existing policy when it is precisely the means by which existing policy is changed, so it is more than policy: it is meta-policy. I see from the discussion that this section is actually about whether local consensus trumps global consensus, which is a very different question from the title. I suggest that you change it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Determining whether or not global consensus trumps local consensus is frequently done on an ad hoc basis and itself is subject to consensus. See also recursion.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't trump policy, but it's usually needed to determine how to apply it and whether a particular policy applies at all (which is usually the dispute, when experienced editors are involved.) For example, WP:BLP is non-negotiable, but whether a particular statement falls under it or is sourced well enough to satisfy it is often going to be a point of dispute, which isn't the same thing as editors saying "let's just ignore BLP." If you're completely outnumbered on a talk page but think the people there are still grossly ignoring policy, it's usually best to go to the relevant noticeboard to ask for more input and to attract outside voices who are familiar with the policy in question. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was advised to try and work it out (or waiting about a week) before heading to the noticeboard (NORN seems the best place for it). As the article is under fullprot as of now, and no one is doing anything, that its maybe time to do that. May I ask how to do so so it doesn't look like I am forum-shopping? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• The entire idea of plot summaries drawn fomr the original episode has always been a truly terrible idea. It is textbook WP:OR and yet the various pop culture communities have decided that it's perfectly fine. Dr. Who has an enormous body of reliable commentary, so relying on personal observations is a firm "no". Guy (help!) 10:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Arse. Anther round of people fighting to get badges. Guy (help!) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Oh Guy, you're just jealous because you don't have the WikiCup ;P ^{[just kidding]} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I don't have anything against WikiCup specifically, but the toxic environment at places like ITN is the result of badge collectors and treating Wikipedia as a competition. I understand the value of gamifying as a user engagement mechanism but I've seen too many fights over the parents' egg and spoon race to be comfortable with it. Guy (help!) 10:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

An exercise in navel-gazing, bling-chasing, self-indulgent narcissism. Can't be beaten 😆 ——SN54129 11:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring user despite warnings

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

---

User Mostafa2704 is edit warring List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won despite an ongoing discussion taking place regarding the nature of the edits in question and despite me advising them directly on their talk page that continued reverting could make them fall foul of Wikipedia:3RR. The edit history shows continued reverts despite this not being agreed by consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Bungle Please report edit warring to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:SharabSalam

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

---

User:SharabSalam has violated WP:3RR in Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 . Telluride (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN/3 is the right place to report that. --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

That might not be a great idea, because Telluride has violated 3RR as well. A good read of WP:BRD might be in order for both editors. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's odd, really, that that whole topic doesn't seem to be under DS and so 1RR (unless I've missed it, perfectly possible of course). ——SN54129 15:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I was going to do just that, adding {{IRANPOL GS talk}} toward that end, but since the dispute was defused (one way or another), I decided to hold off on that. El_C 22:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C, I only looked at discretionary sanctions—forgot about GS! ——SN54129 12:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Is this meat-puppetry?

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

---

I was noting the sudden arrival of new editors to The Mandalorian discussion page and was wondering if these represent meat puppetry: (1, 2, 3). The user sending out the request for help notes how "its impossible to talk sense into these guys"⁽³⁾, suggesting that the person requesting the help isn't looking for help changing or building consensus, but instead burying dissent under votes.

Am I reading this wrong? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

These editors were previously involved in the discussion, as can clearly be seen on the talk page. I wanted to hear their opinions and see if they had any additional input which they could have provided. Their previous comments had indicated they agreed with my position, and I was curious to know if they were willing to reiterate their position and provide support or clarity to the discussion. --Bold Clone 22:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, Bold Clone opined that "its impossible to talk sense into these guys"⁽³⁾. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, because I was not making any headway in reaching a consensus, I consulted other editors to see if they would be willing to assist. I got a bit loopy over the deja vu of saying the same thing at least a dozen times, I was jazzing it up a bit. If you took offense, I offer my apologies. --Bold Clone 22:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No meat-puppetry here, Jack Sebastian. I'm commenting here because I'm mentioned 3 times above. In the case of this current debate, I've attempted to have a civil discourse about the article, and tried to remind other editors such as yourself of the mandate at the top of the talk page, which reads "Be polite, and welcoming to new users". In fact, my most recent comment agreed with your stance of removing the contested item from the series summary page after considering your argument. We don't need drama, just clear discussion. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And respectfully, I will point out that I have provided just that: civil discourse and don't think I have not treated anyone poorly. To me, it appeared that you had sought out additional voices. Understanding that I may have misunderstood your intentions, I withdraw the inference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE it would have been better to put something like "There's a vigorous discussion going on at Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out. Please help." at for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Better still would have been, "Help me, [editor's name], you're my only hope!" – Levivich 22:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian and Bold Clone: This doesn't qualify as meatpuppetry, but it is canvassing. When getting others involved in discussions of disputed content, we should try to be as neutral in our request as possible, not try to front-load our request with the suggestion that people other than the requester are being inflexible jerks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion above is the norm. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Copy and paste move

Can someone fix Chatterer and Chatterer (Hellraiser)? The newer one (disambiguated) is essentially a copy-paste of the old article. I tried to fix this using Special:MergeHistory, but it didn't work – I got an "overlapping revisions" error, and I don't remember how to deal with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Astroye removing sourced information repeatedly

See his talk and he has been blocked for this multiple times. Several users have tried to communicate with him and he refuses to post to his own talk page or the talk page of the relevant article(s). He has no interest in collaboration or even comprehending the basic rules here. @Danlaycock and Jan CZ:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Cathal Ó Searcaigh BLP violations

Hello, this article is being edited disruptively and currently has serious BLP violations. It need to be protected and/or other measures. Thanks in advance. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at anything else yet, but this edit summary is clearly deceptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've read a bit more in the last few seconds, and it clearly goes beyond the deceptive into the trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

the section Fairytale of Kathmandu is extremely problematic. If there is relevant sourced content that can be added then fine but as it is now this

libellous perhaps? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It is defamatory. I have removed, asked for protection, and a revdel. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock review requested

• 2605:6000:770A:AD00:0:0:0:0/56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled on this range after reverting this edit and looking at the page history. I found that there was a clear pattern of inserting hoax info into article from the range spanning 2 years (since 15 October 2017) with no noticeable constructive edits. The majority came from the /64 range, but not all. There's a clear pattern of edit summaries with single terms like "cool", "clever", and "fun" as well.

The IPs had received multiple warnings from folks like Geraldo Perez and a blocks on:

• 2605:6000:770A:ADF0:6596:440C:53E7:9B1A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Ronhjones
• 2605:6000:770A:AD00:D461:8554:F48B:4871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by GorillaWarfare

I'm making this post to (1) make a record of the abuse and (2) to ask someone familiar with rangeblocks to double check my block. I'm comfortable with /64 blocks, but this is my first /56. The /48 range does not seem to contain any extra addresses. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Spectrum in the US South I would be extremely careful with because it’s usually legacy Time Warner Cable (see here.) For IPv4, their addresses are usually the same for years on end, and IPv6 is also relatively sticky within a /64 (but I have less experience with their IPv6, so I don’t want to talk as strongly as IPv4.) I’m not familiar enough to say with certainty if this block is needed, but I would not make a range block this large for a year if it is needed. This is impacting a lot of non-mobile connections and a year on a first block is pretty long for a normal ISP.

Update: collateral doesn’t actually look bad in CU. I would suggest lowering the length a bit (try 3 months or less at first) and getting rid of the hard block, though, just because of the ISP and range size. Collateral wouldn’t be an issue now, but it could conceivably change in the future and I don’t think we want this impacting a large residential population. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: thank you! I'll decrease length and remove hard block. I was thinking this may have been possible with two /64 blocks as well, now that I look closer. I'm going to bed, but any admin is welcome to adjust this block as they see fit. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lithuanian resistance

I'm not sure what to do about Lithuanian resistance so I'd like help please. Until recently this page was a disambiguation page, stable since 2012, with 2 entries: Resistance in Lithuania during World War II and Lithuanian partisans. At this edit, User:Ragaiselis blanked the page with a new article, the content of which appears to overlap that of the 2 aforementioned articles. I found it because that edit has left behind a redirect Lithuanian resistance (disambiguation) which now longer targets a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've boldly returned it to a DAB page. (Temporarily at least.) My reasoning is that, if there's room for another article on the subject of Lithuanian resistance (and there may well be, it's not my period), then presumably the DAB page will be more, not less, necessary. It seems likely, though—at a first glance—that the "new" article pretty much duplicates most of the others. I'd suggest that WT:MILHIST is a better place to get an expert opinion on the value of articles like this. ——SN54129 19:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for sources is being constantly reverted

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

---

I am adding a {{fact}} tag to a sentence "The 2020s (pronounced "twenty-twenties"; shortened to the '20s[1][2]) is the current decade in the Gregorian calendar that began on 1 January 2020 and will end on 31 December 2029." in the article 2020s. The statement is not obviously true, it's rather controversial, and debates are ongoing all over the place. Years are counted from 1 not from 0 hence decade is 1-10 and not 0-9. The other side also has their arguments why a decade could be say 2020 - 2029 so in short it's not obvious and we need to source this statement, as we do every non trivial statement. However my request for sources have been constantly reverted by user User:HiLo48. My personal request in his or her talk page to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of the most important rules in Wikipedia, was not only left unanswered, but reverted as well. I see no way to reason with said user, and I don't understand why one would insist that a statement in the article wouldn't have sources, hence I'm posting here. I must stress this is about asking for sources for the statement that's already in the article and not about which definition of a decade article should use. --Nomad (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement is obvious, and there are no sources anywhere that state that the 2020s are not from 2020 to 2029. There are a few fringe sources which state the "next decade" is from 2021 through 2030, rather than the current decade being from 2020 through 2029, but they are fringe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have reverted Nomad's {{fact}} tags if I had seen them before HiLo48. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well thats weird insisting that a statement should have no sources. You talk about sources so I assume you looked up for them, you claim you found a few fringe sources so I assume you also found quite a few good sources supporting statement in question. Is there a reason you didn't add them to the article? If I find a source on my own and add it, are you going to also revert it? --Nomad (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• This reasoning based on years being counted from 1 is pure pedantry. A decade is any 10 years, so 2020 to 2019 is a decade, and so is 2021 to 2030, and so is 2022 to 2031. It just happens that the decade 2020–2029 is called the "20s" or "2020s". And the years 1–9 weren't a decade, or part of a decade (1 BC to 9 AD?) you'd want to give a name to. Big deal. EEng 09:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC) p

This is about reverting request for sources instead of providing source or just leaving it alone, not about your or my opinion on what a decade is, right. --Nomad (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about you making a fuss over something that no one with common sense is worried about. It's ridiculous. EEng 20:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• The article is 2020s and {{fact}} was added in diff. Perhaps we should ask for a bot to add a similar tag to 1970s and 1890s and 1760s and friends. Please don't introduce crankery at Wikipedia—no one cares about the amusing arguments regarding when the decade should really begin. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Although I do agree with Arthur that there is little merit in the challenge, because "the 2020s" is almost never taken to include 2030, the correct response to that is not to suppress the {{fact}} template but to go away and source it properly. WP:BLUE is all well and good, but once somebody comes and challenges something then it's better to simply provide sourcing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  You might like to start at 110s. Re 2020s, is there any serious doubt concerning whether the year twenty-twenty is in the twenty-twenties? Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Obviously not, and only the most extraordinary logic could place the year twenty-thirty in the twenty-twenties. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely. If someone asks me when I was born, and I say "the 1970s", they'd assume I was insane if I then told them I was born in 1980. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is someone really arguing over the need to source the obvious fact that the 2020s means 2020 to 2029? The sheer stupidity that sometimes plagues this place still manages to amaze me even after all these years! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing surprises me any more. But really ... if someone asked me when I was born, and I say "the 1970s", they'd assume I was insane if I then told them I was born in 1980... Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Query: WTF is this doing at AN, and can we end this and go back to arguing full-time over who's Jewish? EEng 20:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

• I missed that it was in WP:AN. If the OP had any facts on his side, WP:ANI would have been appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• This debate could have been settled with a citation to the most reliable of sources: https://xkcd.com/2249/ --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Now you show up, Mister, um, "AntiCompositeNumber". Suspicious name there. EEng 06:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from Allen2

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

---

• Allen2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Allen2 is requesting an unblock per the standard offer:

Now I understand that why I'm blocked on Wikipedia in the first place, because I failed to demonstrate my competency to clearly communicate with my peers in English and a lack of ability to edit constructively in an encyclopedia setting. So, I rely on Just Chilling to demonstrate my competency in English before my next request. I made a number of substantial contributions on Simple English Wikipedia that can appear constructive with every single edit with edit reasons, and I was able to improve my proficiency in English; this means I know when I'm going to make an edit, at anytime, especially that I will be able to correct a single grammar mistake when I just visited a page. I must apologize for my poor English and my past behavior in the past five years, so I will promise that will never happen again for my misbehavior. I hope you will forgive me for all of this. I will rely on you administrators when you allow me a second chance on this site. I believe that this block will no longer be necessary anymore, because I want to make constructive edits this time as demonstrated with my latest contributions on Simple English Wikipedia. That is when I started to edit again, I will be honest that I want to make things right again with my focus entirely on the encyclopedia setting. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 09:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's my editing plan I would follow if I were unblocked:

• I will know what the very basics of Wikipedia mean by five pillars.
• I will formally comply with every rule and policy to make sure that I use Wikipedia properly. (I will be careful to what they were saying when I didn't read them.)
• I know when I'm going to make an edit.
• When I just visited an article page with some mistakes in grammar, then I will be able to fix some of those mistakes for them. It's not just grammar on Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the place for other things - this means that I will not use Wikipedia for things other than the encyclopedia itself.
• I will not use Wikipedia as a forum. This means that I will not use article talk pages to discuss nor comment about the article. (I didn't use talk pages properly as I was talking about what's new to the article, but it talks about some changes to the article.)
• I will not use Wikipedia as a web host nor a social networking service (This means that I used to have a friends subpage that I had added some users that watched TV shows, I choose not to have that page anymore thanks to an administrator who deleted that page for me right after I got blocked.)
• I will not use my talk page for status updates. (This is obviously spam. Talking to myself on my user talk page is just spam and irrelevant to this wiki.)

Administrator, I will be glad to hear a response from you as soon as possible.

--Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 09:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Allen2 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Unblock request for Allen2 (his previous request) for more details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Four years is a long time for a young person (I'm assuming) to mature significantly. From the request it looks like he understands the problems (and I'm also seeing much better English now). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Despite telling us above that "this means I know when I'm going to make an edit, at anytime, especially that I will be able to correct a single grammar mistake when I just visited a page", Allen2 should hesitate to make grammar corrections. Recent ones on Simple Wikipedia include, per edit summaries, "Passive verb remove: "They won" instead of "They have won.""[52], "re-insert 'decade' word to call it as 2010s decade"[53] and "One sentence rephrase and grammar fix: They began to play since the team was established in 1962."[54]. 92.19.28.14 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that Allen2 should be wary of correcting other people's grammar, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker when it comes to unblocking. There are plenty of good Wikipedia editors with pretty poor grammatical skills, and we all make mistakes sometimes (I think I might even have made one or two myself). This editor should take reasonable care when editing, as we all should, but unless we unblock we can't really find out whether such reasonable care will be taken, and four years is a very long time. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as others have said, 4 years is a long time to grow. Looking over his contributions at Simple Wikipedia, they look constructive and I believe if unblocked he will be a net positive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support This editor apparently may not be a native English speaker & for him to have been blocked for four solid years due to a semi poor command of the English language is a tad bit too harsh. From what we all can observe I’d say he has made an exponential improvement & should be unblocked as soon as possible. Now if or not he was a net positive during his active days I can’t say but as per blocking a user due to the poor manner in which he used the English language, now that’s harsh. How many native English speakers can speak other languages? Yeah that’s what I thought. Celestina007 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from Captain Occam

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

---

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

Hi all,

We have received an unblock request at UTRS from Captain Occam which I would like to put to the community,

"The simplest answer is that the block is no longer necessary. I violated my "race and intelligence" topic ban because I assumed its scope was limited to articles that discuss both race and intelligence in combination, and it didn't occur to me that it would be viewed as covering the topic of intelligence or psychometrics in contexts that don't involve race. During the eight years between my 2010 topic ban and my block last year, a "race and intelligence" topic ban had never previously been interpreted as covering the entire topic of human intelligence. But now that I'm aware that the scope of my topic ban is interpreted that way, I'm not going to make the same mistake again.

I'll also reiterate an offer that I made once before: I'm willing to disable my Wikipedia e-mail feature as an unblock condition, so that there can be no further suspicion that I'm using it to try to influence the articles where I'm topic banned.

I request that people reviewing my request please read the request for clarification that I made shortly before I was blocked, particularly this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=835271663#The_e-mails I accept that my block itself was valid, but there were a lot of misunderstandings surrounding the decision to make it indefinite instead of for a month: particularly what others assumed about the contents of the e-mails I was sending, before I posted them in that request, and also what ArbCom intended the scope of my topic ban to be. When I asked ArbCom about its intended scope, the only arbitrator who gave an opinion said that it applied only to articles that discuss both race and intelligence in combination, not to either race or intelligence by itself. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=834201165 ) The rest of ArbCom never gave an opinion because they felt the answer no longer mattered now that I had agreed to avoid all intelligence related content in the future. However, the answer I received is relevant to the question of how long a block I deserved for editing articles that relate to intelligence (but not race), before I realized this was a bad idea.

Finally, I think I should be unblocked so that I can continue maintaining the articles that are my largest editing interest at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beebe and related articles. In 2011 I raised the Beebe article from start-class to a GA, and more recently I am the only editor who's been keeping all of its references in the correct format. Now that I'm blocked, this maintenance is no longer being done, and there is a risk that the article will eventually be demoted. I'd also like to be able to add more images to this article, now that photographs published in 1923 and later have begun to enter the public domain. One of my long-term goals is to eventually make this article into a featured article, but that also depends on my having the ability to edit it

f I'm unblocked, my editing will be similar to my editing from what I was unblocked in January 2017 until I was reported at AE in April 2018, except with no more edits to intelligence related articles. I edited articles related to creationism vs. evolution, video games, and books. I have a few more specific plans:

I plan to improve the sourcing in the article about Adnan Oktar, the famous Turkish creationist, which contains several citations to blogs and self-published websites. I disagree with almost everything Oktar has written, but I think BLP policy ought to be upheld regardless of my views about a person.

I also intend to recreate the article about the Final Fantasy musical theme "One-Winged Angel". This article used to exist, but was turned into a redirect in 2007. I think merging the article in 2007 was the right decision, but at this point there are enough sources discussing this piece of music to to create a well-sourced article.

Finally, there's William Beebe and related articles, of cours

I was blocked for violating the topic ban I was given in the 2010 "Race and intelligence" arbitration case. This was my first topic ban violation, and the maximum length the case allows for a first violation is 1 month, but admins felt I was an unusual case that required an indefinite block instead. I accept that the block itself was valid, but there are problems with some of the arguments for why an indefinite block was necessary. I described two of those issues in this request's first section.

One argument presented at AE was that I should be indef blocked based on my past interaction with the editor Deleet, because that user was allegedly a neo-Nazi. According to TonyBallioni this allegation is irrelevant to my block, but other admins have said it is a compelling argument. If others consider it a compelling argument, I request that they please examine the background of this statement, which was recently discussed on the oversight mailing list, because it suggests the statement is very unlikely to be tru

One of the basic principles of the "race and intelligence" arbitration case is that when a person has participated in articles related to that topic, they remain permanently associated with the topic from that point onward. This principle was first established by ArbCom in a pair of amendments passed in May 2012 and September 2012, defining a new class of editors "associated with the R&I topic" or "who have worked in the topic", and creating remedies about interactions with that class of editors wherever they are encountered on English Wikipedia. This principle applies especially to me, because I'm under a unique remedy that all of my participation in discussions everywhere on English Wikipedia is potentially sanctionable under the "race and intelligence" case, as stated in the third bullet point here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=757695840#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Captain_Occam Because of this principle, it is not unusual for editors to be banned or sanctioned under this case at times when it's months or more than a year after they exited the topic area.

I'm mentioning this not because it excuses my actions, but because I think it gives them necessary context. Most editors haven't experienced what it's like for those of us sanctioned under this arbitration case to have the controversy and risk of sanctions from this case follow us for the rest of our Wikipedia careers, and to have our former involvement in that topic used to discredit us in unrelated areas we want to edit. When we react to this situation badly, as I did, it's entirely appropriate for us to be sanctioned to show us that we're in the wrong. However, I think it would be reasonable if admins could show some understanding of how difficult this situation has been to deal with, and that the twenty months I've been blocked is a sufficient block length for the mistake that I made.

Finally, if I'm unblocked, I understand that I probably cannot expect to be unblocked again if I repeat a similar mistake"

TonyBallioni has given permission for this to be logged here and I am going to enable TPA to give the user the chance to respond to questions here.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

• Comment The current block stems from this AE case, which is recommended reading. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oof, that was a painful AE report to skim through (read it before). I would conditionally support an unblock request from this user. I'm glad Occam understands that this is seriously a last, last, chance unblock. Besides complete adherence to the topic ban, the only unblock condition I think might be needed is one where if Captain Occam starts to reignite old disputes, then an uninvolved can just indef block. Obviously, if people start picking fights, we can reevaluate things.
  Regardless, this unblock request shows to me that Occam is on the right path towards contributing positively to this community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock Occam's history is certainly messy, what with a variety of blocks and an ArbCom case in their name. But this unblock request shows a level of maturity, and examination of their mistakes. It appears that Occam understands there will be no next time. The sword of Damocles shall hang above their head for a long time. My advice to Occam is that they stay far away from anything controversial, avoid noticeboards, and work on some solid and uncontroversial content creation for the next six months. Be beyond civil in all interactions, making sure to be polite and cordial. If you cannot be civil, just stay away from those discussions. And interpret your topic ban as broadly as possible. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I went through the infamous 2010 arbitration case charged against the particular user for their contributions to Race and intelligence. For my concern that they might have not been fluent or aware with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the time. So there is no point in talking about the same old stories again and again because the user was a novice at the time. Now the user has clearly admitted their mistakes and has promised to avoid contributing to controversial and disputed matters. Looks like the user has learnt from their mistakes which they committed in the past and we can give pardon to them. I also took note of their valuable contributions to expand the article on William Beebe. We can give glimpse of hope to them so that they can maximise most of their missed opportunities and would be vital to Wikipedia community in the future. Abishe (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I was neutral until I had to deal with the months of Captain Occam trying to circumvent community review and playing “Pick a functionary” on the basis of 100% fabricated claims that his block was based on suppressed information. It was not. This was told to him by both ArbCom and the oversight team, and he continued every available opportunity to seek to avoid community scrutiny by finding someone who didn’t know about the views of everyone who has reviewed this: there is absolutely nothing private involved here. I’m not at all shocked that the Wikimedia Discord crowd is here supporting him: that was his primary way of canvassing people with false statements during his months of appeal.
  As to the merits, the facts are simple: Captain Occam is a pseudoscientific racist who has advocated in public and private for the inclusion of an ArbCom blocked user who is a far-right extremist. He has been a problem for years, and his IDHT behaviour during his appeal indicates if unblocked, he will continue to be one for years to come. We should not tolerate this disruptive racist on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A striped leopard for Boing!-- Deepfriedokra

• Oppose I haven't previously encountered this case but this does not look encouraging. This is the second time Captain Occam has been banned, s/he was sitebanned by ArbCom in 2012, following a long string of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing. ArbCom lifted the ban with conditions in 2017, and Captain Occam was indefinitely blocked for breach of those conditions in 2018. The request above is largely focused on arguing that the block should never have been imposed in the first place and that s/he has been treated unfairly, which is not what I'd want to see for an unban. Attempting to rehabilitate disruptive users is an annoyance and a timesink for editors who are not disruptive, and those are the editors we actually want to keep around here. Hut 8.5 07:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni and per the AE case (which was based on pursuing the Race & Intelligence topic via email after being topic banned). The appeal might appear superficially appropriate, but having reminded myself of the background to the topic ban and block, I find it disingenuous and entirely unconvincing. I doubt I could be convinced to support an unblock until I've at least first seen a stripy leopard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• There's an example of the disingenuity in the description of another editor as "allegedly a neo-Nazi". If you know who that person is (and Captain Occam knows for sure), then you'll know what I mean. Anyone in any way sympathetic to that person and the obviously racist and extreme right-wing views they espouse should have the door permanently closed on them. (Oh, and, erm, thanks for the tiger ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just discovered that User:Deleet self identifies on his user page, so I'm not violating WP:Outing if I point out that he's Emil Kirkegaard - Google is your friend if you want to learn about him. Kirkegaard is rightly excluded from this community, and so should be his collaborators and apologists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  This goes over it well. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Considering the partial block suggestion, I oppose that too. In my view, we should not have a person with Captain Occam's fringe views (and who is adept at pushing those views by various means) editing anywhere on this site. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock regretfully. I was going to support, but Hut 8.5 changed my mind. It would have been better if appellant had not argued the unfairness of it all. (Hopefully they will remember this in the next appeal.) I mean the parts before that were almost enough to convince me. I'm just not convinced that problems will not simply continue once unblocked.-- Deepfriedokra 08:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Welp, the problem with "alleged" neo nazi's and other people of strongly held views is they cannot check their convictions at the door. And I have a hard time not seeing their apologists as being similarly unable to edit non contentiously. I had not considered that aspect in my oppose, but it certainly adds emphasis.-- Deepfriedokra 09:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The “support”s and related response commentary reminds me of what Twain had to say about the pardon of Injun Joe in Tom Sawyer. I’ve read the discussion following my oppose, am changing to Strong oppose per MastCell, Phil Bridger, and Eggishorn. Appellant impresses me as being quite skilled in, well I guess the word is “tap-dancing,” through this appeal. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the dancer from the dance.-- Deepfriedokra 22:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

question from appellant

I have a question for User:Deepfriedokra. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Partial_blocks, the Wikipedia community is reaching a consensus to allow partial blocks, which prevent a person from editing in some areas but not in others. Since there is concern that I'll cause future disruption if unblocked, would you support turning my block into a partial block, so that I'm technically prevented from editing in the areas where there is fear of me causing disruption? I would be willing to accept that restriction as an unblock condition. Captain Occam (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

-- Deepfriedokra 09:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If it could be implemented effectively, I would entertain the thought. However, this is a hypothetical requiring feedback from other discussion participants.-- Deepfriedokra 09:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral for unblock, but please note currently the use of long-term partial block is limited because of phab:T202673. AbuseFilter is a much better way to enforce a long-term partial restriction (if necessary).--GZWDer (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni. It's true that Occam is skilfull and able to say what needs to be said—that is why it took monumental efforts to get rid of him the first time. Once back inside, it would be drip-drip-drip to push his fringe POV. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The lengthy and evasive nature of the unblock request doesn't inspire any confidence here. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hut 8.5. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, it would be shame on me. He was unbanned before. It didn't seem to go well. --Jayron32 11:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per Hut 8.5's analysis. Having read trough the AE report..... Captain Occam is without a doubt a skilful editor, but when the skilfulness is used like that, the price to be paid by the community as a whole would be too high imho. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Largely inline with Tony (regarding canvassing and admin shopping) and Hut 8.5 (arguing unfairness of block rather than clear owning up to things). Like Tony, I've had a lot of conversations with Occam in recent months both private and public on Discord. In good faith I'm always willing to give advice to an editor who wants to try to come back. I don't feel any of that advice has been heeded though, and like Tony, the constant badgering and discussion around the case ultimately forced me to warn Occam off from publicly discussing it further or face removal from the server. To be fair, he heeded that warning at the time, but as this unblock request turned against him, I was asked if he could discuss it again to make sure people "understand the background", a request I declined as it would be clear unequivocal offsite canvassing. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think we should extend good faith here -- that Occam simply misunderstood his ban as only applying to the intersection of race AND intelligence, when it was really both subjects. Some of the arguments raised against him seem like unproven conspiracies. In light of Occam's long history of contributions, he should certainly be unblocked. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Reading through this and looking at his contributions and explanation, it very much appears that Occam should be given the benefit of the doubt given his detailed expansion and history. It seems likely that Occam would not repeat the history of causing disruption, and it's worth giving a good contributor another chance. Severisth (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't have much to add. The analyses from TB and Hut 8.5 and the AE report should be enough. I'm not going to assume good faith, we've been down that road before. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Too much of the editor's request is arguing the fairness and length of the block. I find Tony's and Ferret's comments particularly concerning. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've slogged through all of this (including the initial complaints and subsequent follow up), and I can say without equivocation that Captain Occam needs to never return to our project, and brick up the entrances he used. This guy has been given multiple chances to get his act together, and he keeps feigning errors when he skirts the edges of his restrictions. I've been under restrictions, and its hard, but if I can muddle through, so can a user with several more years of experience than I. I am sorry, this person cannot be fixed by us and needs to go bye-bye forever. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Captain Eek. Loksmythe (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• If Captain Occam had fooled us once, then shame on him. If he'd fooled us twice, then shame on us. But he's fooled us a half-dozen times, so the fact that people are still arguing for him to be given a "last chance" is bizarre. My assessment mirrors that of TonyBallioni: in my opinion, Occam has consistently abused this site to push racist pseudoscience and actively collaborated with eugenicists and far-right extremists in those efforts. He's also routinely deceptive in presenting his case, and depends on a steady stream of credulous enablers who mistake his robotic recitation of falsehoods and half-truths for "maturity". He's a discredit to this project, and his prior participation has imposed a significant cost to good editors and to this site's reputation and credibility. Furthermore, every time he's been given any leniency or leeway—every time—he's abused it. Seriously, take whatever time you're spending arguing for Occam to be given an nth chance, and spend it supporting a constructive, good-faith editor instead. For the record, that's an oppose. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact that this editor has made a lot of edits is far from a reason for unblocking. This seems to be a fallacy that is used regularly here, but it is still a fallacy. We need to actually look at the edits rather than count them, and this editor is obviously here to push a point of view rather than to build a neutral encyclopedia, and has been given too many "last chances" for any unblock appeal to be anything like convincing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I must be missing something because editors I respect are taking this request seriously. This despite the fact that the request starts with what appears to be a bald-faced liean apparently unsupported claim: ...I assumed its scope was limited to articles that discuss both race and intelligence in combination... versus the actual AE request: I received a "Wikipedia email" from Captain Occam ...in which Captain Occam criticized my editing on Race and intelligence. There is no conceivable way that Captain Occam could have misunderstood his "Race and Intelligence" edit restriction to not apply to the Race and intelligence article. I know there was some question as to whether an ER applies to Wikipedia mail, but that's not what he claims to have misunderstood. How an unblock request that starts with untruth can be expected to result in anything other than the insertion of further untruth into the project beggars belief. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Captain_Occam#Talk_page_access to place Captain Occam's explanation/reply here for other editors:Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: When I said "I assumed its scope was limited to articles that discuss both race and intelligence in combination", I was referring to why I initially believed it did not violate my topic ban to participate in the ill-fated psychometrics task force (which related to intelligence, but not to race). My involvement in that task force was one of the major reasons originally given for my block. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Occam: the block you are currently appealing is the April 14, 2018 block which is specifically: "(per Special:Permalink/834221440#Captain_Occam". That is the AE request I mentioned in my oppose. Claims that the psychometrics task force is the "major reason" given in your block are simply not borne out by the record. That participation may have been part of your personal context behind the email you sent, but the actual reasons given are not what you claim. I stand by my evaluation that you are being untruthful in your request, which does not bode well for your possible future participation. Despite opposing your unblock, I honestly hope that you have a happy and productive New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support 'Weak' because Captain Occam has damaged his impression due to plotting through emails and other forms of private discussion (as mentioned by Ferret). I hope he realizes communication like that does not give a very trustworthy apperance. But on face value, there was no consensus for an indefinite block in the 4 April 2018 AE thread and thus the block was just a normal admin action. An indefinite block for a topic ban violation done via email is fairly harsh. Some of the reasoning here is clearly inappropriate, like the unsupported personal attack by TonyBallioni that the editor is a disruptive racist. How is that allowed? It should be easy enough to point disruptive behauvior (such as the e-mailing has been pointed out) if he was failing to adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV, without emotive name-calling. As I understand it, the reasoning here is some form of a "guilty by association by association" because Deleet is associated with some fringe people through a conference, and CO has been associated with Deleet. That is not a policy-based reason for a block. While the off-wiki plotting by Captain Occam is annoying, I doubt we'll get a written statement from Tony that he has never discussed administrative actions off-wiki before acting, either. --Pudeo (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing! and TonyBallioni, both of whose opinions I respect. AGF is not a suicide pact. Miniapolis 23:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Amongst others, I have been on the receiving end of unblock requests that the appellant knew was untrue - particularly in alleging wrongly that his block was related to suppressed materials. There is no value in permitting the return of an editor whose hallmark is biased and disruptive editing. Risker (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the tone of this unblock request is to the effect of "I'm sorry I did what I did, but I felt justified in doing what I did" which is basically apologizing without apologizing. Captain Occam appears to be once again wikilawyering around the intent of his sanctions by nitpicking at the specific wordings of his sanctions. If his unblock request had sounded more like this, then maybe I'd be considered to an unblock, but since Captain Occam has failed to acknowledge and admit where he went wrong beyond a simple "I won't make that mistake" again, continuing the siteban is still necessary to stop the harassment of other users with regards to the R&I topic area. You don't try and get around the intent of what Arbcom and the community had told you to do then expect the Arbcom and the community not to eventually slap you with an indef. Clearly Captain Occam hasn't made a full admission of where he went wrong to substantiate his claim that he won't return to the same behavior that got him banned.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Captain Eek and Abishe. From what I can gather, Captain Occam seems like a productive and diligent editor who may have run problems largely due to political differences with some other editors. He's already been blocked for a rather long time, much longer than it seems was initially warranted. I think the project would be well-served to have him reinstated. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seriously, Jweiss11, that is what you got out of all of this? Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Ever read Tom Sawyer?-- Deepfriedokra 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Request doesn't demonstrate how they have learned from their sanction and how they would address the topic area in question. Groveling is not needed, "I recognize that X, Y, and Z behaviors were problematic and will do A, B, and C differently in the future to avoid even the appearance of promoting these fringe views" is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblocking Captain Occam will always be a mistake. The non-apology in this unblock request, the walls of text (including this one which they inexplicably want copied over to AN, and their long and checquered history here all point to an editor who shouldn never be allowed back on Wikipedia. A reformed Captain Occam is not going to happen. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Please block my user account forever

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

---

Dear admins! Can you please block my user account forever? I don't want to edit the Wikipedia anymore. Thanks very much. Corrun Falt (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrun Falt, How would blocking your account make a useful difference? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrun Falt You might find an admin willing to voluntarily block you, but why not just simply abandon your account? You could also change the password to something you are not likely to remember to deny yourself access. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrun Falt, are you saying that you want to delete your user account? they might be able to do that if you wish. Here is some information on that. they can rename your account, if you wish, for example. you can read more at Wikipedia:Username_policy#Deleting_and_merging_accounts. I hope that's helpful. --138.5.187.110 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, only abandoned. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrun Falt per using/applying common sense How about just logging out of your account & never bother to log in anymore?????? Seems kind of easy that way, No? Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be the obvious easy default solution unless there is some reason that has not been mentioned. Unless Corrun Falt replies here I think we can reasonably assume they have done that. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The OP has decided on a different approach: [55][56][57]. So, sure, block. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

And done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Please unprotect

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

---

Hi, could somebody please unprotect Obaseki so I can create a dab page there? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Issues with page protection are handled at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Issue with a article quote

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

---

I have edited the Lacolle, Quebec article and i noticed that there is a large quote with the illegal immigrants in this revision, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lacolle,_Quebec&oldid=881697203. I took the liberty to remove this reference and move it to the appropriate town of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec since this particular point (Roxham Road) is in that town. This user User:PaulinSaudi reverted my edit because it's actually not accurate information. This article mentions Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle many times. I know this because i live in Lacolle and the article used for reference and it's a conservative leaning reference. What should i do? --Phoquer (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a quote, and ANI is not the venue for adjudicating content. Raise the issue on the article talkpage, with alternative sourcing that supports your assertions. Personal knowledge isn't admissible.

While we're here, I strongly advise you to change your username. Acroterion (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Anupam unblocked following successful appeal

Following a successful appeal via email to the Arbitration Committee, Anupam has been unblocked with an indefinite restriction from engaging in disclosed and undisclosed paid editing, including making edits on behalf of any former clients. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Anupam unblocked following successful appeal

IP making bad edits

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#IP making bad edits. It appears this editor is back today making more well-intentioned edits. Twice they have changed {{infobox person}} to {{infobox writer}} which in itself is OK, but they have not fixed incompatible parameters. Once that have made the same incorrect edit to |notableworks=. Today, it is 2600:1700:C970:1560:BD89:EFBC:5D40:33C6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MB 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Post in wrong place MB 04:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of The Rambling Man arbitration case is vacated, together with the associated special enforcement provisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

Arbitration motion regarding Magioladitis

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis (talk · contribs)' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Money emoji appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Money emoji (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Money emoji appointed trainee clerk

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined. Going forward, he may not request relaxation of his restrictions more frequently than once per year, with the next request not taking place prior to 1 January 2021. In addition, he should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 21:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Admin action (page protection) review - self requested

• Crime in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I semi protected the page Crime in Sweden because a user with a dynamic IP has been disruptively edit warring there. I feel this case warranted it and that the IP editor has no intentions of stopping or engaging in meaningful dialog (see WP:ANEW report as well). I am WP:INVOLVED however, so I wanted to request outside input on this. Any admin is free to reverse this action if they think it was inappropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me ping three other editors who were involved here too: Pudeo, Aquillion and Sjö EvergreenFir (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good call to me. Regardless of how one feels about the data, this (which they were revert-warring in with their most recent edits) was clearly breaking the lead, in addition to the first two sentences being cited to sources that clearly shouldn't be used there. It's bad enough to raise WP:COMPETENCE / WP:NOTHERE issues. The user did try to contact me on my talk, but, well, you can see what they were like - stuff like You make a mockery of wikipedia and I despise deceitful people like you makes it seem unlikely they could be communicated with. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to block 'em for incivility and disruption, it looks like a /20 range block. Didn't look like it would cause collateral damage, though.-- Deepfriedokra 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is this possibly related to David A, who's had a history of edit-warring about crime stats on that article? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Where did that come from? I am barely even active in Wikipedia nowadays, as I am kept extremely busy managing my entertainment wiki, and it was 2 years ago when my additions of crime statistics were removed. I do not remember edit-warring though. David A (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla and Kutyava

I've combined the two discussions below. They were originally submitted separately. — Newslinger talk 13:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've also blocked both Padavalamkuttanpilla and Kutyava for 48 hours for violating the three-revert rule on the T. G. Mohandas article. This was reported by Kutyava at WP:AN3 § User:Padavalamkuttanpilla reported by User:Kutyava (Result: Both blocked). After the blocks expire, I would advise both editors to discuss issues with each other on talk pages, instead of reverting and sending warning templates without communication. — Newslinger talk 13:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla

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

Please check the latest activities of the User:Padavalamkuttanpilla Kutyava (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kutyava: What is your concern exactly? Have you attempted to discuss this with Padavalamkuttanpilla yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please warn this user

Check this user activities User:Kutyava He suggested deleting several reviewed articles, including the wikipedia admin reviewed pages. Please prevent this person from editing against Wikipedia policies -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  21:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, whoever may have reviewed it. Can you provide any evidence, in the form of diffs, where this editor has edited against Wikipedia policies? If you disagree with the deletion nominations then simply state your reasons in the deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla just as Phil Bridger said, anyone can nominate any article for deletion regardless of the patroller/reviewer. In the end a good article would most likely survive an AFD but if you’re implying that he/she is incompetent & just nominating obviously satisfactory articles for the fun of it then that’s a whole different case & if that’s the problem here I think that might be an aspect of disruptive editing. Phil Bridger what do you think? Celestina007 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: nominating articles for deletion can cross over into WP:disruptive or CIR editing territory in some cases. But nothing Padavalam Kuttan Pilla has said provided any evidence that would apply here so frankly there isn't even a reason to look.

But I did and in fact a look and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Babu shows in at least one of the cases which I guess brought Padavalam Kuttan Pilla here, there seems to be some agreement. No comments yet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marunadan Malayali, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.P. Sasikala, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outspoken Kerala. Then there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Coast Vijayan which also seems to have some support and where Padavalam Kuttan Pilla showed the same misunderstanding, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyan Developers. True things didn't always go their way e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyan Silks (2nd nomination) but a look at the stats [58] suggests they've often right although it's a small sample size and a bunch of them are recent unclosed.

Mind you, there is something weird going on given Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padavalamkuttanpilla and #Padavalamkuttanpilla and [59], and the fact PKP nominated a bunch of Kutyava's articles for deletion mostly, I think, before Kutyava did PKP's articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. K. Parakkadavu Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerala State Sunni Students' Federation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samastha (AP faction), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samastha (EK faction), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama. (Or at least they were proded before.) Considering PKP's apparently belief that articles being reviewed somehow precludes deletion, I did have concerns if they understood the deletion process well enough to nominate articles, but although I only had a very quick look, some of those AfD's don't look that bad.

Frankly, I wonder if those's sort of retaliatory tit for tat editing going on both sides, and if that is the case, may I suggest both parties cut it out and stop drawing attention to themselves with their complaints.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: what about this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TG Mohandas ,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janmabhumi-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal

Following a successful appeal via email to the Arbitration Committee, Unicornblood2018 has been unblocked, with the condition that they are topic-banned from any pages or edits related to (1) China, or (2) new religious movements, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal

Some Twitch stream...

...is apparently urging idiots to vandalize. Please look at my recent blocks and protections, and help out at AIV/recent changes. I'd give more detail but I gotta look at Mike Myers and get busy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the stream moved on to something else. Thanks for the warning. — Newslinger talk 04:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to the streamer, he seemed to be playing a game where he went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole to a specific target and his viewers decided to vandalize. From what I followed, he seems to do this often....:/ HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

An edit filter targeting the streamer's name could help minimize the damage and send WP:AIV a warning when this happens again. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee removing Categories and Lists Inappropriately

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

---

Coffee has been removing for the past day wholesale from all Jewish related lists and categories he comes across with the edit summary of "removing unsourced claims per WP:LISTPEOPLE/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R; do not take the entries I've left here as a sign of my endorsement of their inclusion... I have not looked through all the sources provided yet" [60]

For example, from the Jewish American Poets category he removed Emma Lazarus, that would be the Jewish poet notable for having the poem on the Statue of Liberty, or from the Jewish American Military cat, he removed among them Uriah Levy who was the first Jewish commodore in the US and fought against physical punishment in the navy, certainly notable. At the very least, he should not be removing wholesale these people. On his talk page, he claims he has permission to do so by the OTRS and admin corp, yet that is not how policy works. It's one thing to remove unsourced items on a list or category, but to remove 90% of a list and say you didn't even bother to look at the article to see if it's sourced, is not how it works. The list just lists people. The article is where the sources are. We don't need to make exceptions for special cases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote on his page, if he has a question of sourcing, he should go to the Judaism project page, which has an active membership and people there can help out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that this involves (at least in part) OTRS tickets, which this venue is not set up to adequately handle. Additionally, is there any particular reason that you did not give coffee more than roughly 8 or 9 minutes to respond to your note on his talk page prior to taking this to AN, Sir Joseph? Discussions surrounding this have also involved anti-Semitic and Holocaust concerns, which I do believe have some weight and deserved a response prior to going direct to AN. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What 'Holocaust concerns' are relevant to a list of Jewish American poets?Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

or people like Isaias W. Hellman, Maurice Kremer, and Florence Meyer Blumenthal, all long since deceased. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, that's why i said i have a small feeling that someone is punking Wikipedia with the OTRS but I was told it's real. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• TheSandDoctor, please explain the OTRS tickets. Also, as I said, we have policy and you can't just remove things. Please tell me, for example why Uriah Levy was removed? He died a long, long time ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  As I said, communication. There is a project page that you all could have posted on either to give a heads up or to ask for help. But now there are just tons of empty lists. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I replied to this matter at my talk page. I would ask that Sir Joseph in the future wait longer than 10 minutes for someone to reply to them before attempting a thread like this, especially when dealing with such sensitive matters of potential Anti-Semitism. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Coffee, you're right. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate that Coffee has taken up this discussion on their user talk page, but share Sir Joseph's concerns. Can another OTRS volunteer who was active in these discussions confirm Coffee's interpretation? These articles have existed for years with entries that were referenced in the blp articles, not the list, so this appears to be a relatively new reinterpretation of policy that was not discussed on-wiki before the changes were implemented. At a minimum, Coffee should take the time to check if the relevant items have a source in the linked BLP article before removing, and if Coffee lacks the time to do this, I am sure there are editors willing to take on the task, including, as Sir Joseph mentions, on the Judaism project page.Dialectric (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, his is concerning, especially since he's stating he hasn't looked through all the sources yet.

If even one of the reliable sources states these people are Jewish, it can be included. Throwing down the BLP flag is inappropriate in that case. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to have been a severe failure to assume good faith here. If entries can easily be sourced then spend your time putting them back with sources rather than hurling accusations around here. It doesn't look like anyone has even added a single sourced entry to these lists in the time that this discussion has been going. Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the articles are all sourced, this is for lists, which point to an article, so yes, try to assume good faith here, yet Coffe's edit summary makes it clear not to add anything back. That is not how it works. You don't remove lists wholesale without checking the article to see if it belongs and then put the onus on other people. His edit summary even says he didn't check to see if it belongs. If you are going to remove 99% of articles, then the onus should be on you to verify that you are removing things that should be removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Please explain how removing Allen Ginsberg from List of Jewish American Poets without even bothering to check the article is acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

While you were spending your time writing that diatribe I was spending mine finding a good source and putting Emma Lazarus back into the list of Jewish American Poets. Which of those is the more productive? And Coffee said nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as a prohibition on putting back sourced entries - he simply said not to revert by adding all of the entries without any sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that folks really need to read WP:LISTVERIFY - this specifies that the sources need to appear on the list itself, not just in the linked article, if its contentious. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not just removing entries on lists without sources. It is also removing people from lists with sources that are deemed insufficient under a very strict standard (sources that do not expressly identify whether the subject is an ethnic Jew or a religious Jew are not sufficient, consensus of sources showing that they self-identify as Jewish, and the fact that they are Jewish is a component of their notability (I guess that is why Sergei Brin is no longer listed as Jewish). As most entries do not meet these standards, the fact that they are Jewish is being removed from their biographies, even with sourcing, in addition to removing them from the list. (e.g. List of Jewish American businesspeople) Patapsco913 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, I thought this was our norm because of antisemitism? Anti-semites love pointing out who is a Jew. IIRC, we’ve blocked people for doing the opposite of what Coffee is doing. Not trying to be argumentative, but I was under the impression we didn’t point out that someone was a Jew unless there was clear sourcing showing its significance. I agree this probably could have been done more surgically, but I think the intent was good and I’m not really sure why this is already at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, If that were true, the various Jewish wikiprojects would be antisemitic. I think the problem is that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent. Multiple sources that specifically state whether they are referring to either Jewish ethnicity or Judaism with self-identification and that their ethnicity/religion is part of their notability seems to be a high hurdle. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, I actually think we agree because you just wrote the majority of what I would have said. I think it’s ultimately a content call best discussed on talk pages as to the best way to appropriately weight the sourcing. I’m more saying here that based on past experience, we’d typically like a source discussing the fact that they are Jewish. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, What is contentious? Coffee removed 90% of most of the lists. Are you saying most of those were contentious? Pick one from random, and since I've used Uriah Levy here before, what's contentious about him? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which contains WP:LISTVERIFY is a guideline, not a policy. As discussed above, in practice, many lists of people have not included inline citations for many years. While I understand that some editors may want to bring the encyclopedia closer to the guideline, if the changes involve large scale content removal, this should have been discussed on-wiki before being implemented. Dialectric (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni A large-scale rapid content removal across numerous articles with a 'do not revert this edit' message in the edit summary should have some centralized discussion somewhere on WP.Dialectric (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an on-wiki discussion would have been ideal here. Regardless of the OTRS issues, I think my point was that we also consider large scale additions of “Jewish” categories to be disruptive because it’s usually nazis and their ilk who do it, and for people who don’t follow this topic area, the past experiences of having to deal with anti-Semitic trolls are going to form the basis of what they think is our practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the point that large scale changes to content is disruptive? In this case it is a large scale removal. Some of which can be supported on BLP grounds (which is the justification for VRS/OTRS related changes generally speaking). But a fair percentage of content removed were people who are not covered by BLP and for whom immediate removal en masse overwhelms interested editor's abilities to provide citations so that their inclusion can satisfy the relevant policies and guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That probably would have been a good start although the standards for inclusion seem to be quite strict: a consensus of sources exactly specifying whether the subject is of Jewish ethnicity or a practitioner of Judaism (mere "Jewish" is not enough), self-identification as such, and the fact that their Jewishness is part of their notability. I doubt if many Jewish biographies could meet the hurdle.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, Not just that, these are made up standards just for these categories or lists. Because of ONE OTRS ticket we are turning Wikipedia topsy-turvy and removing sourced named because of some made up policy? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, these are not "made up standards just for these categories or lists". WP:LISTVERIFY applies to all stand-alone lists, and has been a consensus-agreed guideline for many years. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that this overwhelms interested editors. I have added a couple of entries back, with reliable sources confirming that the subjects themselves regarded themselves as Jewish, to List of Jewish American poets, and that took me in total about 10 or 15 minutes. I could have done more but was hoping that people would spend their time improving the lists rather than trading insults here, but obviously there are many editors who get more enjoyment out of trading insults than improving the encyclopedia. Coffee deleted, on my count, 63 entries from that list, so if a few editors would add a few entries each to the list per day it would only take a few days for it to get back to its former glory but with all items reliably sourced. The same could be done with the other lists. What's so difficult about that? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that one source is not sufficient. Sourced entries are being removed as well. Take a look at the diffs on List of Jewish American businesspeople "one source does not a verified consensus of reliable sources make, nor is it clear this is key to their notability" Patapsco913 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That depends on the source. If one source is reliable and confirms that the subject self-identified or self-identifies as Jewish and saw or sees that as part of their identity then it is sufficient. That is the case with the sources that I added to List of Jewish American poets, but is not with those that Coffee removed from List of Jewish American businesspeople with the edit summary that you quoted. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, that is the new policy I'm talking about. Where does this come from? So I now need to go back in time to the 1700's and find a source that Haym Solomon for example actually stated, "I am Jewish" for him to be included in the list? Let's not make special rules for one religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this rule applies to all religions, or whatever other classification is used for lists. Why do you immediately assume that Jews are treated differently from everyone else by our guidelines? There is enough real anti-semitism in the world to worry about it without you making it up where it does not exist. Historical figures should be dealt with by the "consensus of reliable sources" clause. I'm sure that the consensus of reliable sources about Haym Solomon is that he was Jewish and that that was part of his identity, so there's no problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Please try to AGF. You are the one who is saying we have two rules when it comes to Jewish related categories. That is all. Don't put words into my mouth. You said people need to self-identify. People don't often walk around saying "I am Jewish." Yet the last time we had this discussion, that was what people required on this site. An absolute 100% affirmative statement that is why I and I think Patapsco913 are saying it's not something that can be easily obtained even by someone 100% self-identified.

Regardless, again, I think this should have been discussed on-wiki and at the Judaism project site and I reiterate that I think it's ludicrous that ONE OTRS ticket is the impetus for this, to have all the Jewish related cats and lists be turned upside down is crazy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that WP:LISTVERIFY applies in these situations. I agree with Coffee that the standard for inclusion of a BLP being Jewish will be necessarily higher, and require better in-line sourcing, than for historical figures. I agree with Sir Joseph that the scope of these removals was disruptive. That disruption feels justified to me in the case of BLP - our policies are clear on what actions are called for in these cases (immediate removal) - but less justified for historical figures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For the third time, in the hope that it will sink in, these rules apply to all categories, not "Jewish related categories". We do not treat Jews any differently from anyone else in our policies and guidelines. If we were to do so then I would argue vehemently against that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, or the military one. I'm looking at that now and more than a dozen were removed that should not have been. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, if that were the case why would Evelyn Danzig Haas be removed despite having an interview where she states she was confirmed and her parents attended temple during the high holy days (Reiss, Susan B. (1995). "Evelyn Danzig Haas - Fine Arts and Family: The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Philanthropy, Writing, and Haas Family Memories - Interviews Conducted by Susan B. Reiss". Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley.) and despite her funeral being held at Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco) (Cabanatuan, Michael (27 June 2011). "Philanthropist, arts patron Evelyn Haas dies". SF Gate.)Patapsco913 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If you told me which list she was removed from then I could say whether I think she was removed correctly or incorrectly. How can we discuss this properly when people don't even supply such basic information? And can everyone please say "list" when they mean "list". Categories are different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I was referencing the sufficiency of sourcing that would be required to put someone on a list. In this case, self-identification and a Jewish burial were not sufficient to define someone as Jewish per the editor removing the entries from the lists. Abraham Haas (died 1921) was removed from [of Jewish American businesspeople in retail] despite sourcing "Abraham Haas: Purveyer of Food Stuffs, Wholesale & Retail, Part 2, Los Angeles". Jewish Museum of the American West. Patapsco913 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For crying out loud (that makes it three times I've been forced to utter that strangled oath recently), I asked you a simple question so why don't you answer? What list was Evelyn Danzig Haas removed from? How can I respond to your post if you refuse to supply such simple information? And, if you still refuse to make it possible to conduct a reasonable discussion, can you tell me whether those sources were cited in the list article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, he answered you. List of Jewish American businesspeople in retail. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, he said that Abraham Haas was deleted from there. Where was Evelyn Danzig Haas deleted from? Was that the same place or a different one? It is a very simple question and one that for some reason two of you are refusing to answer. It is impossible to conduct a reasoned discussion when people won't answer such simple questions. Just tell me what is wrong and I'll agree or disagree with you, but if people won't identify which articles they are talking about then they can't expect others to run around looking for which they might be. Anyway, it's two and a half hours away from the new year here and, in the immortal words sung by Jimmy Pursey, I'm "going down the pub". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the source was used for Abraham Haas on List of Jewish American businesspeople in retail and removed as inadequate (the diff is in my last comment). The reason was "one source does not a verified consensus of reliable sources make, nor is it clear this is key to their notability ... thus removing as WP:CAT/R violation" My point is that the hurdle we have to meet for identifying someone as Jewish - whether on a list or in a biography - seems to be pretty high requiring multiple irrevocable sources, self-identification, specificity as to whether the citation refers to ethnicity or religion, and the fact that their Jewishness is part of their notability. Patapsco913 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I still think it incredulous that this is the result from ONE OTRS ticket and while I was told that the ticket is real, I still have the nagging feeling someone is punking Wikipedia. I would love to have as much information as one can share about the ticket to ease my feelings, regardless of the outcome. In any event, regardless of ticketing, we don't change policy and mass edit Wikipedia to remove sourced content. That is my concern. Lists are lists of sourced people, and I don't think I've ever seen lists that now need references on every item on the list to warrant inclusion and these lists should not be different. If there are concerns about people on the lists, then we can discuss individual people, or bring the cat or lists to the WT:Judaism page, but we should not mass remove hundreds of people off lists. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I am opposed to mass removal —OTRS complaints notwithstanding. I am opposed to mass anything. Implementing changes en masse is a recipe for trouble, and at the very least, requires ample discussion at related Wikiprojects or in some other centralized venue. Each encyclopedia entry, in general, should be assessed according to its individual merits. It is my understanding that that is how it was, and I argue, how it is and should be. To sum up: individual attention is required, per entry. El_C 18:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

^{..."opposed to mass anything"...does that make you antiCatholicism? Atsme} _Talk 📧 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have had a long discussion with Cofee and TheSandDoctor about this on my talkpage, as I am somewhat of an expert in this area both in real life and on Wikipedia, in view of my more than 10 years of active editing on Judaism-related articles and categories. As I understand from that discussion, this was discussed by a group of five WP:OTRS editors. If anything, the discussion on my talkpage has shown, that these good-willing editors had an insufficient understanding of the issue at hand. The crux of the matter being their lack of understanding the difference between being of the Jewish nation and being of the Jewish belief, and the ramifications of that difference for Wikipedia articles and categories. In my opinion, these edits must stop, and possibly be reverted. I noticed changes on two articles, and disagree with both. Possibly, a broader discussion of this matter should take place as well, as I agree with previous editors, that changes of such magnitude can not be decided upon by some clique of priviliged editors. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Not sure how five editors responding to one complaint can undue an encyclopedia. We're not talking about someone complaining about being harassed so OTRS responds to harassment. This is possibly an abuse of what OTRS is. Who are the five editors and what are their qualifications to decide the proper course of action? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• The first step ought to be for Coffee and his associates to revert all deletions of long dead people as these have zero BLP implications regarding contemporary anti-Semitism. The next step ought to be an effort to discuss the issues regarding BLPs in a calm and sober manner before continuing this campaign of mass deletions without even looking at each biography for sources that can be verified and copied over to the list. Tagging "citation needed" is better than mass removal of content, when removal should instead be surgical and precise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have written similarly on the people not covered by BLP. However, I disagree that policy (specifically the cited WP:BLPREMOVE) prefers tagging over removal. We can have, and are, having a debate whether this content falls under that policy. However, I think there is evidence to suggest it does and if so this sober moderate path suggested above is actually not the one supported by policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, if a biography of a living person contains solid references verifying that the person is Jewish, then it is hardly contentious that a link to that BLP appears on a list of Jews. In my view, the solution is to copy over the best of those sources to the list article, not to remove the name from the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  I agree Cullen328 that if a BLP of a living person contains solid references verifying that the person is Jewish then it is hardly contentious for that person to appear in a list article and for the source to be copied over. I'll also state, and I'm guessing you'd agree, that a generalized reference, e.g. The Jewish Encyclopedia, for people not covered by BLP, is sufficient to satisfy WP:V/WP:LISTVERIFY for many entries. The rub comes for the people in between: living people for whom the article does not provide a solid reference verifying that the person is Jewish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is as big an issue as purportedly being claimed. The Editnotice for lists of people says that all entries should be supported by references. Every link/guideline given in the edit summary by coffee says that entries in lists should be supported by references. For years I have been removing "alumni" from school/university pages when they are not supported by references. If one person is complaining at OTRS about their invalid entry on a page, then it's not like we can say "well, this person complained and there's no references, but these people haven't said anything so we'll just leave them unsourced"; no, we remove them all. It is the onus of those adding to the list to make sure there is verified reason for inclusion on said list. I will grant you that some of the folks being removed are dead, but WP:V is just as important as WP:BLP, especially when it comes to matters like religion and ethnicity.

The long and the short of it is this: these are not inappropriate removals, they were inappropriate additions that are now being reverted. As a minor note, an editor editing a half-dozen pages will not undue [sic] an encyclopedia and the hyperbole is quite frankly silly. If people are missing off the lists, re-add them (appropriately) and try to remember that we're all on the same team. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Coffee put the editnotice in. That wasn't there before. And removing unverified isn't the point, it's removing en masse those that belong on the list. His edit summary said that he didn't even look at the list to verify or validate if people belonged or not. He just removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On some, yes, but it was there before this for others. Plus, the editnotice itself has existed since 2011. It's not a DS in that we can't act unless it's put on the editnotice, and clearly it's a long-standing concern. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Yes, but the issue is that he has removed mass removals of sourced edits. As someone who uses Twinkle I know that "I am responsible for all my edits." I can't see the emergency in this mass removal that he couldn't ask for help, either at noticeboards, or at WT:JUDAISM. Removing Lazarus or Ginsberg from List of Poets is just obscene for example, and the gutted list of American soldiers, most of whom have been dead for over 100 years is clearly not a BLP issue. We have a flag to determine if an article is alive or not. That could have been used. He also could have done a quick once over to see if the person is alive or not. But to do a mass removal was wrong. That is the issue. Nobody has a problem with V or BLP, it's removing entire lists. Just look at his contributions for the past few days and see how he gutted CATS and LISTS without checking any of the contents. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many ways to fix an article, list or otherwise. One is to take a TNT approach, whereby all unsourced info (BLP or not) is removed and re-added as appropriate. The second is to leave that unsourced information there until it can be verified or removed. I think discretion (read: immediate removal) is the better part of valour. Will most of the removed names be eventually be re-added? Probably. Will Wikipedia suffer because a relatively-obscure cross-categorized list be missing a few names for a few days? No. Were "obvious" names removed? Undoubtedly.

Regardless of the initial actions, coffee has said in multiple places that an effort to check all those names and restore the appropriate ones will take place, provided there is assistance. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Your first point is an ideological issue I disagree with, there is no immediate harm in not removing all these from a list. Your second point in stating that Coffee will restore with assistance is the point. At no point did Coffee seek out assistance. That is what I said multiple times in this thread and on his talk page. He should have posted a message at JUDAISM and Jewish History that he removed a good chunk of people from Lists and Cats and people should go through his edits and re-add those that are properly sourced. But there was no communication at all. All we had was a mass removal of peoples from Jewish lists and categories with no explanation, or explanation that made no sense, since BLP doesn't apply to dead people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Four things I'll note that seem to have been misconstrued here:

1. When I said I don't have the time to review each case on the lists, I meant that to mean that I was going through thousands of articles directly and reviewing their sources (in about the most thorough way I've ever handled any task on this site) and that was eating up most of my time so I wouldn't be able to focus on such a task as sourcing unsourced claims in a potentially contentious list. I came across these lists not including sources, even when there were editnotices (before the one's I added) on several of such lists noting the requirement for such sources to be added. When I saw that issue, I thought it best to ensure we protected the article subjects first and foremost. I understand here that it appears some of those listed were in fact dead. To that I will note that BLPREMOVE only applies to living people, so if it is found that the inclusions of the dead people (once again I personally, at this current time, do not have the resources to look into this) meet WP:CAT/R I am all for those names being listed back. I also am all for the names of living people being added back, if proper sourcing is provided per WP:BLPCAT, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTVERIFY.

2. Patapsco913 has a long history of adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations into BLPs (we've had complaints about this editor dating back to January 2019 according to an OTRS admin), yet is commenting here as if they're properly following policy with their additions. I'll note quite firmly, only a handful of what I've looked through so far (about 3,000 of their 95,000 edits) have properly been sourced or have properly stated what is in the source.

3. This is very much not an abuse of what OTRS for is as alluded above, one of our main focuses when dealing with non-copyright matters at OTRS is handling requests from article subject's about their BLPs. Considering we shouldn't wait for every single person with a BLP to complain to us about an issue that is pretty clearly not being fixed properly and is abundant across several articles (especially after Patapsco913's additions in particular), I decided to tackle this issue broadly and with urgency. I have not taken this task lightly and I don't think any of my colleagues have either. It was almost a given that these types of moves would upset some of our editors, but that was not the reason we went into this. I approached this situation with the consideration of the article subjects' personal safety first and foremost. In this situation I think it is basically obligatory that we handle describing people in this way with the most care absolutely possible.

4. These are not in any way new policies, it just appears new because no one had enforced them. Nor was this the decision of a "privileged clique of editors", these decisions were based in long-standing policies on how we handle such descriptions in biographical articles, stand-alone listings of people and categories about religious affiliations. I do understand that such moves have caused frustration, and I apologize for that. Hence why I have stated multiple times at my talk page that once I'm done reviewing several more thousand edits from this user I will gladly assist in adding names back with proper sourcing to lists, etc.

I would just ask that some of you here understand that I'm currently still in the cleanup phase of this task. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it started with my edit on Edward Kosner where I added he was from a "Jewish family" with two citations (I could have used the Wall Street Journal but it was behind a paywall so I usually leave those out since others cannot see them). It was requested to be removed via OTRS for "Concerns of undue weight, and request for removal." No problem. I did synthesize by saying he was from a "Jewish family" and not just that he was "Jewish." And it is fine that all my edits are being reviewed (I watch them - some I agree with, some I don't - they are mostly not too interesting) Here is an edit I made on Samuel Gottesman based on a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article titled "D. Samuel Gottesman, Noted Jewish Philanthropist, Dies in New York". Is that sufficient? I don't know, I thought it was. Anyhow, my biggest question involves what kind of support is needed to identify someone as Jewish. I will repeat what I said earlier. It seems that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent. Coffee's requirement (correct me if I am wrong as I am using what you state in your edit summaries) of multiple sources that specifically state whether they are referring to the subject as of Jewish ethnicity or a practitioner of Judaism with self-identification; and that their ethnicity/religion is part of their notability seems to be a high hurdle. Sergey Brin did not meet that standard per Coffee's review. If that is the agreed standard then we should go with it but it does not seem to be the standard I have seen applied on wikipedia by many experienced editors who edit extensively on Jewish biographies. So I think it is good for this discussion to take place so wikipedia can firm up its guidelines on this unique situation where ethnicity/culture meshes with religion. (and this is the first i have heard about a OTRS complaint so perhaps the first one in January 2019 was not so egregious).Patapsco913 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this particular series of events, but I see it as a particularly egregious example of a general problem stemming from people being added to lists, both stand-alone and in-article, and to categories, without citations to reliable sources. I believe that we need to consistently enforce the need for verifiability more stringently for people in lists and categories. - Donald Albury 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As an OTRS agent (verify) I can confirm we have had multiple tickets this year in particular about this issue. I do think Donald Albury is on point, the issue stems from subjects being added to lists, and categories with insufficient or a lack of citations. I do think removing these categories per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:LISTPEOPLE is a good move especially on the BLP articles, with the long deceased subjects I do think we can slowly re-add the categories that are "lightly" sourced but should require far more stringent in categories and lists pertaining to living people and those recently deceased. All in all I think Coffee was on point with the spirt and the literal wording of the policies. OTRS is not being "punked" however I can not share the content of these tickets per Wikimedia's access to non-public information policy. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No way at all do I object to edits that remove BLPs from Jewish categories and lists when the article lacks references that verify the living person's Jewish identity. Coffee's error in this case was to use an argument based largely on BLP policy to delete listings and categorization from many, many people who have been dead for decades or even well over 100 years, and whose biographies contain impeccable referencing for their Jewish identities. I am forced to conclude that Coffee did not even check for a death date or even skim the biography. Similarly, many (but not all) of the BLPs that Coffee has excluded from lists and categories contain impeccable referencing verifying Jewish identities. One example is Shalom Auslander, a living author whose entire career is wrapped up in his Jewish persona, as verified by many reliable sources. And I only had to go through the letter "A" to find that one. By sad coincidence, Auslander is from Monsey, New York, the heavily Jewish town where several people were stabbed at a Hanukkah party only a few days ago. What is the benefit to the encyclopedia of summarily removing Auslander from our list of Jewish authors? Wikipedia contains many, many lists of people which contain unreferenced links to biographies of living people, but those biography articles are well-referenced for the list claim. Some code monkey could write a bot that would delete such unreferenced list entries by the tens of thousands but that would be disruptive. If I did that myself, even manually, I would expect to be stopped or blocked. A more sophisticated and useful bot would find the appropriate reference in the biography and copy it over to the list. I suspect that human editorial judgment is still required for such a task in 2020. I encourage Coffee to use individualized editorial judgment on a case by case basis, instead of taking a counterproductive cookie-cutter approach that is wreaking havoc on categories and lists of Jewish people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I know we're both starting to sound like broken records, but BLP was one of the reasons given; CAT/R (another reason given) specifically states that dead people in lists need to have good sources when it comes to ethnicity/religion. Stop using the BLP as a scapegoat and focus on the question at hand about whether we should be upholding the requirements for lists of people that have been in place for years. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which contains CAT/R, is a guideline, not policy, so not a requirement. In any case, whether CAT/R applies is open to debate - as mentioned above, Jewish can be an ethnic group, not just a religion designation, and WP:ETHNICRACECAT on that same guideline page points this out as well, making no mention of inline citations.Dialectric (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't want to get into the OTRS or mass removal issue.

  But it's been a clear requirement that lists for living people have inline citations for a very long time now, I would say over 10 years. It's true that our enforcement of this has been a bit of a hit and a miss, although this isn't the first time a list has had a massive cleanup of entries which lack inline citations, again this has happened many many years ago so it should surprised no one. So regardless of the best way to handle this, it is very concerning that some editors who regular deal with BLPs and lists don't seem to be aware of this requirement. The only problems coming should be from irregular editors and IPs unfamiliar with policies not regular editors.

  Frankly, I consider this the most concerning thing about this whole mess. How can it be after all this time, that so many experienced editors are so woefully misinformed about our policies and guidelines? I think we need to consider how this has happened, and how we can fix it, since it's clearly causing major problems, far more so than anything to do with the debate over how to handle this particular issue now.

  BTW, by the same token, the requirement for self identification is not unique to any particular religious group when it comes to BLPs. For ethnicity or races, it gets more complicated but we still require excellent sourcing. There have been plenty of people who have tried to argue that e.g. for some African tribal affiliations "everyone knows" what tribe they belong to and we should ignore our sourcing requirements but these suggestion have always been shot down. Coming from Malaysia, I myself can sort of understand how it can be where such stuff tends to be considered easily known, but the sourcing isn't there and so how frustrating it may be, but I don't think we should relax our sourcing requirements despite that, and in any case, this isn't the time or place to discuss that.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A very belated note. Please note that this discussion is about:

<list moved to the top of this discussion>

and various category removals. If I have missed any out or duplicated any it was accidental, not some evil conspiracy. If there is any more discussion of particular cases can people please link the article and/or list that are being referred to by putting the name between [[ and ]].

I would put this list of lists at the top of this discussion but I'm sure that someone would find a reason to take offence if I did that. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would, so I've done so. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just found this in a WaPo article: The desire for connection is strong. Moskowitz’s follow-up tweet to the above, while not as viral, still got several thousand likes: “me, yelling at the ‘early life’ section: JUST TELL ME IF THEY’RE JEWISH.”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Seven thousand words about removing unsourced material, but nobody's linked to WP:CHALLENGE yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this has nothing to do with the articles in question. This is about lists or categories. Nothing is being challenged for being unsourced. What is being challenged is mass removal for a guideline that is not policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, lists *are* articles. There's nothing in CHALLENGE that says or even implies that "Oh, by the way, these rules don't apply to any page whose title begins with the words "List of...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we have 1000s of list articles of names, many of which cover mostly blp's, that lack inline citations, and have for years. If one is challenging a specific name, that could be reasonably addressed. Simultaneously challenging hundreds of names across multiple list articles should be preceded by a first-pass search by the challenger to see if the content is referenced in any given linked article.Dialectric (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Our Jewish-anything categories are a terrible mess, as are the list articles in question at the top of this section. We desperately need a way to disambiguate the ethnicity and religion, not to mention nationality and culture, in all of them. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just scratched the surface here, and the very first question I had was "why exactly are we making a point of having Category: Jewish [name just about anything you want"? I don't think people realize how weird it is to see anyone categorized by religious faith/cultural heritage when the religious faith/cultural heritage has absolutely nothing to do with the primary quality being categorized. (What's special about Jewish linguists, and how are they different from linguists in general?) We certainly don't have "Roman Catholic x" or "Buddhist Y" comparable categories; in most cases, we don't have "X of Bahamian heritage" or "Y of Hungarian heritage" categories either. Really, we need to stop doing this. Risker (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is a valid discussion we can have but this is about the mass removals that Coffee did and is still doing. If you want to discuss certain pages, we can do so either on that page or on the Judaism project page, but most of these pages are there for a reason and also as I'm sure you're aware, otherthingsdon'texist is not a valid reason to not have something, in any event. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The point I am making is that there's a big pile-on to say "he's doing something evil!!!11!!" rather than trying to figure out if he is doing something that we should have done years ago, or prevented years ago. The discussion about the *merits* of the edits is significantly lacking. Risker (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read that you feel the discussion about the merits of the edits is significantly lacking, when below I have provided six examples of poor edits: Sergey Brin, Isaias W. Hellman, Berle Adams, Noam Chomsky, Allen Ginsberg, and Norman Cahners are all notable Jews, who are notable, in part, for being Jewish. Sources provided below. I note that Coffee did not list any of the "Jewish lists" at AFD. If he had, I would likely have !voted to delete some of them. Instead, he removed entries from the lists. Same with the categories. So, whether the lists or categories should exist or not in the first place is irrelevant to the question of whether Coffee's edits should continue. – Levivich 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Risker, the exact same argument has been made against having list of women authors or African-American engineers. Should we then get rid of all of the parent and child categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation or Category:Women by nationality and occupation? There are plenty of gender, ethnic and racially identified categories that have been long debated in CFD discussions and guideline pages. And yes, we have Category:People by religion, Category:Buddhists by occupation, Category:Bahamian people by occupation and Category:Hungarian people by occupation along with categories like Category:Hungarian people by political orientation and Category:Hungarian people by religion. If you get rid of every gender, ethnic, race, religion or nationality identified category, you'd be deleting tens of thousands of categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a very significant difference between Category:People of Hungarian descent by occupation – the logical parallel to Category:Jews by occupation – and Category:Hungarian people by occupation. I'm just fine with not having any references to religion when they are not a significant factor in the reason for the subject's notability. And I have a real problem with most of these points resulting in the subject being placed in a 'child' category instead of the main category. Risker (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps this question is for another time, but why is Coffee an OTRS member in the first place? And I don't want to make a big deal about this but shouldn't that bit have been removed or is that separate? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  My concern here is that the mass removal of content is purportedly justified because five OTRS members agreed to it. I've never before heard an OTRS member talk about OTRS as if it were some kind of Wikipedia Editorial Board, or subject matter, content, or policy experts. That's far afield from my understanding of what OTRS is. – Levivich 05:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, here is an OTRS member and admin not knowing where the discussion supposedly took place, so this was also just five OTRS members having some sort of discussion, not in a centralized OTRS board even. [61] That makes it even worse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bolding mine. WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:Burden: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Lists are not exempt from sourcing requirements. Lists about people's ethnicity or religion doubly so, living or dead. The only difference is with WP:BLP and the availability of discretionary sanctions, replacing poorly sourced or unsourced material means you will likely end up at AE. If the material has been challenged by removal, you need to add a reliable source to verify it in a list. If its a category, the category must be verified by a source and material in the article. Dont like it? Door is thataway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of the list and category memberships in question here are adequately sourced and have been for a long time (please correct me if I'm wrong.) The problem is that we are faced with an ethnicity and religion sharing the same name, both which can be and often are disjoint, compounded by the fact that the term is also used for a culture and nationality. Only the nationality has a suitable preferred term (Israeli.) Why not split of all those categories and lists into "Ethnically Jewish" and "Religiously Jewish" instead? Are there enough culturally Jewish people who are irreligious and not ethnically Jewish to cause problems with that? EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've put a waters-testing proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Splitting categories and lists by ethnicity and religion because I haven't been able to find the proposal in archives anywhere. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you write "If its a category, the category must be verified by a source and material in the article. Dont like it? Door is thataway." OK, please take a look at Coffee's deletion of two categories at Florence Meyer Blumenthal, where the person's ancestry and philanthropic activities are well supported by reliable sources. Which direction is "the door" for the editors who edit like that? I have asked Coffee to explain that edit with no response. Perhaps you can explain the logic instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I will also point out that Sir Joseph is currently topic banned from the holocaust and anti-semitism broadly construed. So they should not be engaged in any discussion that involves anti-semitism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, I'm disappointed that you said this. Nowhere in Sir Joseph's report did he mention the Holocaust or antisemitism. Not everything about Jews is about the Holocaust or antisemitism. It was other editors who introduced the Holocaust and antisemitism into the discussion, and SJ has steadfastly and very obviously been avoiding discussing those aspects of this thread (and also abiding by the one-way IBAN that was part of that same sanction...let's just get that on the table, too).

  I'm glad SJ brought this to the community's attention, because it gives us an opportunity to address it. And as to your other comment about WP:V, Burden, and BLP, you can see in my examples below that Coffee has been removing material even when it is already sourced, even when it's BLUESKY obvious, and even on biographies of dead people. Listing Allen Ginsberg in a list of Jewish American poets, even without a citation, does not violate WP:V, WP:BLP, or any other policy. – Levivich 06:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed we are once again wasting time on another one of Sir Joseph's crusades. Want to Jew-tag people living or dead? Add a reliable source in-line. Dont want to add a citation? Dont complain when someone removes it. All material when challenged requires a citation. Dont like it, go attempt to change WP:V. And WP:BLUESKY will never ever be allowed for religion or ethnicity. If you genuinely think this is acceptable, you need to be banned from editing biographies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, no one has “Jew tagged” anything. I think you should strike these baseless accusations. It is not “Jew tagging” to include Allen Ginsberg in a list of Jewish American poets. You also don’t need a citation that George Washington was American, or that St. Paul was Christian. If I’m wrong, point me to a policy that would require inline citations for any of these statements. – Levivich 06:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:V requires inline citations where material is challenged as unsupported. If you can write a biography about St. Paul that doesnt include a reliable source to his religion, go ahead. But current policy requires that list articles are subject to WP:V and its requirements and also require sources. Feel free to go propose changes to WP:V. And again, 'But its obvious' will never be accepted for religion or ethnicity. Those parameters were removed from infobox:person precisely because the issues were too complex and too many people labelling persons as religion/ethinicity X because 'obvious'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph made the comments: "these are made up standards just for these categories or lists" and "Let's not make special rules for one religion". If anyone had made up standards just for these categories or lists, or if anyone had made special rules just for the Jewish religion, then I would certainly have regarded them as anti-semitic, so yes, these are allegations of anti-semitism. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You say, "I would certainly have regarded them as anti-semitic, so yes, these are allegations of anti-semitism." Well I say, I wouldn't have regarded "special rules just for the Jewish religion" as anti-semitic. Can I claim that, therefore, they are not allegations of anti-semitism? If I create a "special rule" that all Jewish biographies get to be TFAs, is that anti-semitic or pro-semitic? – Levivich 18:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just being disingenuous. You usually seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so you can't really believe that Sir Joseph was saying anything other than that these claimed "made up standards" or "special rules" were targeted against Jews. I'm talking about what he actually wrote, in the context that he wrote it, not some silly hypothetical rule that you just made up. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, no, I'm being fully ingenuous. :-) Look at the two statements in full:

1. Not just that, these are made up standards just for these categories or lists. Because of ONE OTRS ticket we are turning Wikipedia topsy-turvy and removing sourced named because of some made up policy? He's not accusing anyone of being antisemitic here. He's saying don't make up standards for categories or lists based on one OTRS ticket. I really don't see how you're getting an accusation of antisemitism out of that statement.
2. Phil Bridger, that is the new policy I'm talking about. Where does this come from? So I now need to go back in time to the 1700's and find a source that Haym Solomon for example actually stated, "I am Jewish" for him to be included in the list? Let's not make special rules for one religion. To me that's very tenuous to read into that statement ("Let's not make special rules for one religion") an accusation of antisemitism, in the context of the example from the 1700s. That's a totally cogent point–that we shouldn't require a self-identification source for a person long dead–and it's applicable to any religion or other category. Jewish categories just happens to be the one that Coffee has been editing, but there's no suggestion there–at all–about Coffee's motivations for the editing. In both quotes, SJ is arguing against having "made up standards" for categories/lists based on an OTRS ticket, and against having different standards for one religion as opposed to another. But that's far from accusing a specific editor of having an antisemitic motive. – Levivich 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you just being ridiculous, as well as disingenuous. In both cases the rules have existed for many, many years for all lists and categories, but Sir Joseph was claiming that they had only been created on the spur of the moment in reaction to one recent OTRS ticket with the intention of targeting Jews in a way inconsistent with the way that we treat everyone else. If you can't see the blindingly obvious then there's nothing more I can help you with. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death's post above, accusing Sir Joseph of being on a crusade, shows that he is not aware that he issue here is rather Coffee's crusade against what he calls "Jew-tagging" (another term I am not happy with). We can do without such unhelpful comments here. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone and their dog is well aware of Sir Joseph's issue in the Jewish topic area. In short, Sir Joseph should be allowed to do whatever he wants with disregard to policy, their opinion is the correct one, and if you disagree its because of anti-jewish bias. The above examples as Phil has succinctly pointed out where he dances around accusations of anti-Jew behaviour in order to skirt his topic ban are one example. He's a tendentious editor on the topic and should be permanently banned from anything related to Jews, Israel etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And let's get this straight, Joseph had no contributions since October after the last issues with his editing on the topic of Jews, and his first edit when returning on 31st Dec is to cause another drama with veiled accusations per the above. Its one drama after another because he cant leave the topic of who is and isnt a Jew alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the person "causing drama" is the one who is mass removing entries from Jewish categories and lists, and Jewish content from biographies, etc. The person who responds to that by bringing it to the community's attention, is not "causing drama". They are resolving drama. Put your boomerang away. – Levivich 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uhm, Levivich, go ahead and add that condition to our behavioral policy. It can be part of our 2020 New Year's resolution to eliminate ambiguities in WP:PAG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: My New Year's resolution was to spend less time on noticeboards. So far so good! – Levivich 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we have ample reason to believe that Coffee has been acting on OTRS complaints without the controlled vocabulary infrastructure necessary to resolve them, and as such we should not shoot the messenger. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, EllenCT, I shouldn't have said that Coffee was "causing drama". Stricken. – Levivich 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Coffee stops mass removals

Proposal: Coffee immediately stops mass removals of Jewish-related content, including prose, sources, categories, list entries, etc., from articles.

• Support as proposer, based on Coffee's errors in mass removals so far, his re-instating removals when reverted, and his responses to multiple editors who have raised concerns about the mass removals. Examples:
  • Sergey Brin is a GA-rated biography of a living person. Coffee removed all mentions of "Jewish" in Brin's article, including prose, sources, and categories. In edit summaries, Coffee claimed WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPREMOVE, and WP:BLPRS. Coffee's deletions were reverted. Coffee deleted the categories again, citing WP:BLPREMOVE.
    • Is Brin's Jewish identity "controversial"? Is it DUE?
      • Haaretz interviewing Brin [62]:

        Q: "... what does it mean to you to be Jewish?"
        A: "I think probably the most important thing is the background ...I think that's at the core of the Jewish experience."

      • CNET quoting Brin [63]: When you're a Jew, you have a background of hardship, suffering, difficulties–and to turn that into success is part of the Jewish experience.
      • The Jerusalem Post: The world's 50 Richest Jews: 1–10 [64]
      • Biography.com: "... Brin and his family emigrated to the United States to escape Jewish persecution in 1979." [65]
      • The New York Times: "... his family escape[d] anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union ..." [66]
    • It is WP:BLUESKY that Sergey Brin is Jewish. He is well-known for his Soviet-Jewish emigré background, including for his related philanthropy.
  • Isaias W. Hellman died in 1920. Coffee removed all mentions of Hellman's Jewish background, citing WP:CAT/R. The most-often-cited source in our article about Hellman is a biography published by St. Martin's Press, entitled Towers of Gold: How One Jewish Immigrant Named Isaias Hellman Created California. After Coffee was reverted, he re-removed the Jewish content, claiming in the edit summary "WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violations". The biography referring to Hellman as "One Jewish Immigrant" was cited five times in this article, in all versions that Coffee edited. There was no grounds for removing this content, nevermind re-removing it after being reverted.
  • Berle Adams died in 2009. Coffee removed the only mention of "Jewish" in Adams's article, which was sourced to a book called Jews and Jazz: Improvising Ethnicity.
    • In the edit summary, Coffee wrote removing WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violation... source used does not state what his family was at birth, nor does it state anything about Russian ancestry... if it does in a part of the book not available to the snippet reader (from my review it doesn't seem to), the page numbers need to be specified. The page number is 79. It says "Most Jews in the music business naturally rejected charges of exploitation ... Some Jews in the music business were unapologetic ... Berle Adams said of the music he produced ... Yet other Jews in the music business ..." It is very obvious to me that there is no SYNTH or OR here. That Coffee didn't find it in the snippet view is not a reason to remove it. We have a {{page needed}} template for missing pages in citations.
    • Coffee also wrote in that edit summary that the other sources in this article also do not back up these claims, but the Los Angeles Times [67] and Variety [68] obituaries state that services were held at Mount Sinai Memorial Park Cemetery, the largest Jewish cemeteries in California. (Though not dispositive, it's also a hint that he died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, which is in Category:Jewish medical organizations.) I disagree that these sources do not support Adams's Jewish identity.
  • Removing Noam Chomsky (BLP) from List of Jewish American linguists is almost a WP:CIR issue. Our GA-rated article on Chomsky contains a detailed, well-sourced (e.g., to books by academic publishers like MIT Press and Polity) discussion of his Jewish background, upbringing, and politics. Chomsky is the most famous Jewish American linguist ever. His Jewish identity is BLUESKY obvious; it is not contentious or controversial. In the edit summary, Coffee wrote Chomsky source does not mention him being Jewish. The edit summary suggests Coffee knows Chomsky is Jewish, but still removed the entry nonetheless. This is not an improvement to the list; it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
  • Removing Allen Ginsberg (d. 1997) from List of Jewish American poets (along with many others) has already been addressed in this report, but it's the same CIR/POINTY issue. Ginsberg is probably the most famous Jewish American poet ever.
  • Removing Norman Cahners (d. 1986) from List of Jewish American businesspeople in media. This entry was sourced. Coffee's edit summary said "not backed up by references used". One of the sources was United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which writes, "... Norman Cahners, also Jewish ..." [69].
  • This Dec 30 conversation troubles me, e.g., Coffee's statement in response to an editor's concerns: I would also warn you not begin your edit warring behavior again (how many times have you been blocked for that now?) by going back through my edits I see you already took upon yourself to do with an entirely unrelated article. I would point out to you this discussion has been made aware to my fellow admins working this serious issue, so do try and keep this professional and do not try and subvert policy with your beliefs.
  • This Dec 31 conversation troubles me, e.g., Coffee's statement in response to a different editor with the same concerns: Yes I am currently in the process of enforcing our policies ... I also do not remotely have the time to look for those sources myself while in the midst of a major cleanup of the site, per a consensus discussion with several OTRS members/admins/en-wiki admins.
  • Coffee's statement in this AN thread troubles me. Really all four points, but particularly I would just ask that some of you here understand that I'm currently still in the cleanup phase of this task. I believe that Coffee should immediately stop "the cleanup phase of this task". – Levivich 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal, as written, appears to have some logical sense whilst this discussion is ongoing. That is notwithstanding the above support comment, which I do have some issues with (see my oppose in proposal 2). However, I fully support continuation of Coffee's activities and am fairly positive that consensus will be determined that existing policies should be actively enforced, like coffee is doing overall. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC); amended 00:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons I stated above. I agree with Leviv that Coffee's statement that he is "currently still in the cleanup phase of this task" is worrying. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and adding since he has responded on his talk page with the following sentence, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." as the reason. Being Jewish is not contentious and I think we need to stop this immediately. That is not what BLP is referring to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The examples presented above are evidence that Coffee has been editing disruptively in the area of Jewish categories and lists. Here is a example I discovered when I first started to look into this. Coffee went to Florence Meyer Blumenthal and removed Category:Jewish American philanthropists and Category:American people of French-Jewish descent from the article. Any editor who reads that biography and its first reference will recognize that the edit was egregiously wrong, so I reverted it. The expressed concerns are about BLP issues and contemporary anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, but this woman died in 1930, so that is spurious. I tend to be skeptical of calling people "philanthropists" but Blumenthal is notable precisely for that reason - funding worthy charitable causes for decades. There is something seriously wrong in all of this, and it needs to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• I wasn't originally going to copy over my full reply from my talkpage about this issue, but since Sir Joseph has taken it upon themselves to misrepresent what I actually said here it is (taking out areas that were specific replies to one editor): "I'm merely going through a process to ensure we're properly sourcing contentious claims in articles and removing contentious claims that are not properly sourced. ... I have merely stated what policy states be done in my edit summaries, specifically WP:BLPREMOVE which states:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

The lists are not sourced properly per either WP:BLPCAT, WP:CAT/R nor WP:LISTVERIFY. The articles I've edited have not been complying with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:BLPRS nor WP:V, among others. Two that are especially relevant here are WP:V and WP:BLPRS. Instead of quoting both,I'll quote this section alone in BLPRS as it sums up pretty concisely how both cover the removal of contentious information:

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

I was merely attempting to ensure those policies are being enforced properly, in an area were we should be using the utmost care (not just leaving things "half-finished"). If you think that is permissible to be making lists of contentious information or adding contentious information to articles (BLP or otherwise) that are not properly sourced and cited on our encyclopedia, you can call me very disturbed as well. Because, WP:BURDEN specifically states (and this encompasses every article on our site, including both living and non-living people's articles and related lists):

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

It then goes on to also state something quite similar to V/RS: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Before also stating Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Here's also a relevant quote from our site's Founder on the matter, who I think understood very well when making this statement "how Wikipedia has worked successfully":

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006

Simply put, not only do I fully disagree with the characterization of my actions I think consensus and policy are behind my actions (even if some are frustrated that this will take some work). I'm disappointed that me clearly stating on here several times that I will assist in properly sourcing and re-adding names back after first removing poorly sourced, unsourced, contentious information on our site is apparently not good enough to assuage some of the frustration here, but I fully intend to keep to my word on that. ..." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, "I'm merely going through a process to ensure we're properly sourcing contentious claims in articles and removing contentious claims..." That's what I and @Cullen328: would like to know more about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was about to add this to that reply, but since you apparently replied so quickly here I'll have to put this below: So what I actually was saying is there are a myriad of reasons for my removals, obviously articles about dead people who have not recently deceased do not fall under BLPREMOVE but they still do fall under WP:V regarding contentious claims. One might argue there isn't a lot of Anti-Semitic worries when dealing with dead people. I would say there could be some logical disagreement there, especially if those people have any living children. As that carries a level of nuance to it, I think it best we err on the side of caution. Others may disagree on that, but regardless we have bona fide policies that already require any sort of contentious claim be sourced, even in articles that are not biographical at all. This hasn't just been controversial/contentious in my eyes, but in the eyes of many readers (and even article subjects) and many other administrators. Nowhere on our site does it state that you, Cullen328, or any other particular editors have to find something controversial/contentious for it to be considered so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, so according to you and the OTRS team, it's now contentious to be Jewish, is that the official Wikipedia policy now? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify that Sergey Brin, Noam Chomsky, or Woody Allen being Jewish, is a contentious claim? – Levivich 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, saying "Person A is Jewish" is not contentious, especially when good evidence of that is available only a mouse click away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite incorrect. See WP:MINREF which expressly states four such versions of contentious information:

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Type of statement	Policy requiring inline citation
Direct quotations	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons	Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

None of that says that being Jewish is contentious. Again, I ask: what is your justification for asserting that Sergey Brin or Noam Chomsky being Jewish are contentious claims? – Levivich 05:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, please answer the question, "What is contentious about being Jewish?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Coffee, please explain in full detail why the assertion that a person is Jewish is contentious. It seems to me that amounts to capitulation to anti-Semitism. Please convince me otherwise in your own words, rather than copypasting from some generalized policy document. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Because, it has to do with a religious affiliation (or at a minimum an ethnic description that can be confused with a religious affiliation) which could be easily seen to be WP:LIKELY to be challenged if not properly sourced in the article. And as I've said before "unsourced" includes not being sourced directly in a stand-alone list per WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R. And this is not the only potentially contentious religious designation by a long shot. All claims of (potential) religions can be construed to be a contentious claim, because such topics have all throughout history resulted in disagreement (and much worse in the case of religious violence or sectarian violence). The massive targeting of Jewish people throughout modern history shows such a designation could also present issues of increased risks to personal safety for article subjects and their families (and if the person has not self-identified in such a manner, could put them in a situation where they aren't prepared on how to increase their personal security if necessary), and so in my eyes should be approached with the upmost caution. To me, we should simply ensure first and foremost that we are clear about whether we're referring to having such a heritage or personally adhering to the belief system in question. Then we need to make sure those claims are then properly sourced before stating them, especially when dealing with BLPs. I'll note why I quoted the last bit of policy was to try to answer your questions with consensuses the community itself has determined, not to avoid answering the question (nor to even give too generalized an answer). I'll further note I do not see being Jewish as a negative thing... and I hope my use of the word contentious doesn't carry that idea with it. I merely mean it is a claim that has a high probability of being contended. As to individual cases I will note Brin appears to have had okay sources backing up his claim, but those sources weren't in the article as far as I'm aware. If they were and I didn't see them I would readily apologize for such confusion. As to the others, I imagine you are stating they were listed in their articles with proper sourcing? But, I do not know that yet as instead of trying to solve this issue I've been attempting to assuage everyone's concerns here today (because I understand some people may take offense or otherwise misconstrue the purpose of these moves). I'll note again that I'm all for us listing these designations if we have proper sourcing backing it up. In any case where proper sourcing exists I will be readily assisting in re-adding that as soon as I possibly can. I'm trying to work this out amicably even though to some degree people have made it seem I'm just being irrational, "on a rampage", or some other such unnecessary accusation. I merely want us to get this right. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, you can be incredibly wordy and non-specific when asked for clarity, Coffee, but especially striking is that you have not yet explained your edit to Florence Meyer Blumenthal, despite being asked several times. You need to take responsibility for all your edits. Are you worried about dangers to her great-grandchildren or something? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that while most articles I've reviewed thus far have more recent death dates or are still alive, this particular case was one where I think I could have given more leeway. That's because the risks I mentioned above are (as you point out) indeed lower for people dead that long and their very extended family (even if technically the same policies on WP:CAT/R etc., apply). However, I still was only applying a literal reading of WP:CAT/R in that edit. But, I think it fine if we use a bit more editorial discretion in such cases. After reading through most of the discussion here, I'll note that it seems like most are okay with having such categorizations for long dead people with just one really good source (especially if it's something like the Jewish Women's Archive or a similar generalized reference that can be relied upon). As such I will spend the next day or so going back through various removals, to ensure I didn't make the same sort of removal in other articles using that source or a similar form of sourcing (obviously only if the person has been dead for quite that long). If I find such cases, I will restore the description and report them here so as to keep the community apprised of the situation. Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but I want to turn that knowledge into foresight here. So, when I can resume reviewing other articles of long-dead people for the sourcing issues, I will continue to apply this consistent approach of what can be considered enough sourcing for a description to be within discretion. In such cases I may still make a note on the talk page of those articles to state where I think the sourcing isn't getting it right, or where we could at least add more to back up the claim. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That just more of your long-winded evasiveness, Coffee. Your mistake was not in removing the categories from a woman who died 90 years ago. No, you removed categories that were fully justified by the article content and the very first reference. It would have been just as wrong if she was still alive. It seems that you still do not understand that editing in such sensitive areas in a cookie cutter or rubber stamp fashion is wrong and disruptive. Your error rate is way too high. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that's the second or third time now you have used the term "very first reference" to make it appear there were multiple references backing up the claim in the article. There emphatically were not, (the JWA source while appearing as if it's two sources is in fact only the exact same webpage). Nowhere in WP:CAT/R does it say adding such categories is fine if it's in "the very first reference". What it says is For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate. - do note the plural sources and use of the word consensus. Can you point me to where it our policies say "the very first reference" equals a consensus of sourcing? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This looks to me like full-blown wikilawyering now, Coffee. I said that the reference was the "very first" to emphasize how easy it was to find, and only that. You boldly removed the categories, and I reverted. Now, we are discussing. BRD. Are you now claiming that the source is inadequate and that she should not be categorized as of French-Jewish ancestry and a Jewish-American philanthropist? Are you actually challenging consensus after reading the source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I want to make it clear I read the source thoroughly on my original review of that article (and re-read it after you brought it up here). I'm not wikilawyering, I'm just making a point that a literal interpretation of WP:CAT/R seems to require more than one source. I already tried to explain before your reply on 18:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC) that I think the source can work in this case (and limited situations like it), as the person is long dead. Most importantly, I come to that conclusion now because it appears from this discussion that enough people seem to think one such good source (as Barkeep49 put it) can work for long dead people. However, for a living person or a person who died recently enough, I would think it best (and like I said, several replies back, policy already seems to dictate this) that we find at least two or three such reliable sources covering the person as belonging to a potential religious affiliation. I'm not trying to frustrate you Cullen. I just want to point out that what you may perceive to be an "error rate", may actually be the fault of how the guideline is currently written. Would you be interested in starting a discussion on the talk page of WP:CAT/R, to see if we can change the wording to say that one really good source can be all that is needed for long dead people? It seems like that may should have been how it was wrote originally, and if it were I would have never even considered making that particular removal. I will gladly wait until a consensus is formed there, even after one is formed here, before going back to reviewing any more articles - if you're open to that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Coffee, I am not interested in starting a discussion at another venue although I may well comment there if you or another editor start that discussion. I think that you are going about this process in a dogmatic, rote manner that I believe is damaging to the encyclopedia. Since you are so fond of quoting policy like a mantra, you should spend some time pondering this language from our core content policy on Verifiability: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. If you had followed that sage advice instead of taking the "bull in a China shop" approach, we would not be having this discussion. Your contention that Jewish categories and Jewish lists constitute some sort of unique emergency that requires require immediate and drastic mass deletions is erroneous and lacks consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I get what you're saying. I will try to approach this with a bit less invigoration. I appreciate the more amicable response from you this time. I was at first quite worried about being responsible for leaving the description on anyone's article without good enough sourcing. From here on out I'll try to focus on BLPs specifically a bit more. As far as your final sentence though, I would state that our many OTRS complaints do show that there is some need for approaching how we handle such descriptions with a bit more precision. I will gladly begin the WP:CAT/R conversation since that seems like a workable solution to you; I hope to see you there supporting such a change in policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And here is my opening of that conversation. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support until confirmed to be the correct approach—not, it must be said, an absolute certainty at this juncture. ——SN54129 14:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support fixing them would be better than mass removals. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Mass removals like this without discussion are rarely a good idea and there is enough legitimate opposition for a pause to be taken.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note - I had already stopped yesterday, and I'll note I've only edited 3 after this discussion originally started. I would be truly amazed if anyone can find a single thing wrong with those 3, or even the vast majority of the 300+ I applied long standing policy to originally. The cherry picked issues by Levivich above could have easily been discussed without taking this to AN, and many are flatly an incorrect interpretation of policy: 1) the 3 lists mentioned must be sourced directly in line per entry according to WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R, 2) Brin's article did not have all those sources present backing up the claim when I reviewed the article, 3) Hellman's article was linked to a dead link to support the claim and there was no archive of it available (that has now been fixed, and I hold no qualms with that), 4) Adams article only needed the page number to have the claim restored and that page number was found. However, for how few issues were found here there are many, many, many more examples of entirely terrible sourcing that were being used to back up similar claims of ethnic origins or religious affiliation (and many hundreds more that I haven't been able to address yet). This issue was extremely prevalent on WP:BLPs as well, and with this demand for a pause those issues will remain there in continuous violation of our related standards WP:V/WP:BLPRS/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R. I will respect the wishes of our community, but I ask that if everyone wants a pause it would also be helpful if they could devote time to ensuring the remaining hundreds upon hundreds of articles with such claims be properly sourced. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, our article on Lynn Tilton stated that she came from a long line of Kaballah scholars (not to be confused with cabal scholars), sourced to her own statements as reported by New York Magazine [70] and Bloomberg News [71]. The time code for the Bloomberg interview is in the reference, as is a quote. The NYMag source also reports her statement that her father is a descendant of Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidic Judaism. Multiple sources cited in the article report that her fund is named Zohar, after the "the Kabbalah bible". So why remove that she was born to a Jewish family? Why remove her from Category:American Jews? Your edit summary said it is a violation of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:BLPCAT/WP:V/WP:UNDUE. I don't see it as unsourced, contentious, or undue, that Lynn Tilton, who publicly self-identifies as a descendant of Kaballah scholars and Baal Shem Tov, who names her fund after the Kabbalah books, identifies as Jewish. – Levivich 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: As far as Tilton goes, I fully reviewed the sourcing in that article and watched the entire Bloomberg interview (not just the timestamped area) before I made that decision to remove it from her article. While I get that one can presume that coming from a line of Kabbalah scholars may indicate that the person is Jewish (the Kabbalah is centric to a form of Jewish belief, and the Zohar is a reference to it... and might I note randomly it's a mysticism that peaked my interest a lot even before I ever handled this issue), it is a technical use of WP:SYNTH to come to that conclusion. I get that you might want to say there she is Jewish, but I would emphatically state it isn't enough to make the claim that she came from a Jewish family or to say she is Jewish. She could for instance (I know this is a bit annoying of a way to look at it, but it is still possible) just have had a familial connection with people who studied the Kabbalah but never considered themselves actually to be a follower of Judaism, and she just might like to have named her fund after things her line of scholars once studied. And as far as I'm aware she has personally steered clear of directly describing herself or her family as "Jewish". As such I just want us to find more sourcing stating that she is in fact Jewish or that her family was if we want to include such a claim. So far though, I have not seen that in the article (if it exists elsewhere, we should be able to simple add the claim back in with proper sourcing). If we just want to say "Tilton came from a long line of Kabbalah scholars", or something similar, I do not at all see an issue with that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, that analysis of yours is pedantry on steroids. Do you actually consider the existence of a long line of non-Jewish Kabbalah scholars to be plausible? If so, please stop editing Jewish topics for a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to ask that question without the snark, I'm willing to answer. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Cutty Snark

• Accusing Cullen of snark is a nonstarter. EEng 07:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Okay that made me chuckle. So, I'll answer regardless. Basically Cullen, the issue isn't that I think it's plausible, but that it's technically possible. To even get more to the point: if Tilton hasn't openly and directly stated she is Jewish (it even seems she has attempted to not directly state this), why should we? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, because she has openly and directly stated she is Jewish–she just didn't use the words "I am Jewish". She said she is descendant from the founder of Hasidism (one of the most ultra-orthodox Jewish sects), comes from a long line of Kabbalah scholars, and named her fund after the Kabbalah books. These aren't one-off remarks that she made off-hand somewhere, this is what she says about herself in multiple interviewed like NYMag and Bloomberg. She knows full well people will understand her to be Jewish. She's not stupid. She's not going to say, "Oh! You think I'm Jewish?! I didn't mean to give off that impression!" It's like if I told you that my family came over on the Mayflower, I'm a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, and I live in New York. I don't have to say "I'm an American"–I just said it. By telling you these things about myself (none of which are actually true), I am telling you that I am an American, even though I'm not using the words, "I'm an American". In fact, I think you will find very few instances of people publicly uttering the words, "I am Jewish" or "I am a Jew". In my experience, people just don't say that. They don't talk that way. They say, "I was raised Jewish", or "I belong to Temple Beth Shalom", or "Well, I don't keep kosher or go to synagogue anymore", all of which are statements self-identifying as Jewish, though none of them use those words, and one sounds like a denial. Check out that Chomsky book, page 9, that I linked to yesterday in this thread, and you'll see the Chomsky quote where he identifies as Jewish but says he is "neither a believer nor an observer" of Judaism... it sounds like a denial of Jewish identity, but in fact, it's him explaining "what it means to be Jewish". Also, when people are interviewed, nobody ever asks, "Are you Jewish? Are you a Jew?" It would be, you know, inappropriate, almost always. So, you'll find few examples of someone saying "I am Jewish" in their own words in an RS, I think. A biographer is more likely to just say, "He grew up Jewish" than to quote the guy saying, "I identify as Jewish." I think looking for such a crystal-clear statement of self-identification is imposing an unrealistically-strict standard. (But the content discussion should happen elsewhere anway.) – Levivich 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  First, I get that some people might not state it directly, but I at least would expect sources to state they identify that way directly (i.e. Person X is Jewish, or Person X practices Judaism, or Person X is a Jew) if we're to state it in an article without crossing the line of WP:OR. But, literally zero of the 32 references provided in her article (I looked through all of them while originally reviewing the article) state the word "Jew" or "Jewish" as a description of her (I noted this quite clearly in my edit summary).

  Second, she also stated in regards to her claim of her father's decent from Baal Shem Tov: "but my father died before he ever passed a lot of this stuff on to me. I wonder always whether he didn’t grasp it—or if he didn’t get around to telling me what I needed to know. Or maybe I wasn’t ready?", which doesn't indicate at all she was raised Jewish... if anything that seems to indicate she did searching for some of the teachings and acestral background on her own, later in life. So, the claim her family was Jewish seems entirely unwarrented, and an example of original research/synthises.

  Third, she also didn't just discuss the Kabbalah in describing her beliefs, she also stated she "studied with the Mayan Indians for a decade" in the Bloomberg interview, and NY Magazine states "[Tilton] bought a home in Boca Raton, where she became acquainted with a group of 'Mexican gardeners' who introduced her to Carlos Castaneda’s The Teachings of Don Juan. Tilton devoured the book, in which a Yaqui shaman teaches the author the Toltec art of sorcery, and the gardeners became her spiritual teachers. 'They changed my existence,' she says."

  So, in essence while you may see her descriptions of herself as a claim she belongs to that religion, I don't think that's clear to everyone nor do I think the sources provided support that claim. If, however, you can find sources that do state it directly (even if not in her own words, as that was never what the policy required on self-identification... even if some people do in their own words describe themselves/their family as "Jewish") I'm absolutely fine with someone re-adding it with that sourcing inline. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm thrown by the "claims she belongs to that religion" part. One doesn't have to belong to the Jewish religion to identify as Jewish. Most Jews do not practice the Jewish religion (even in Israel). "I come from a long line of Kabbalah scholars" == "I come from a Jewish family", regardless of what your religious beliefs are. – Levivich 21:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  These two paragraphs of WP:STICKTOSOURCE capture, in their entirety, what is at issue with that conclusion. So as it has not been mentioned here yet, I'm going to quote it (with emphasis added to things that especially apply) for the clarity of anyone reading (or participating in) this discussion:

  Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see [WP:SYNTH].

  ...[Long section about what a reliable source generally is considered to be.]...

  Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

  The similarity there in the first sentence of STICKTOSOURCE to other statements I've made here (and other policies quoted) isn't me simply being redundant. It's the result of our community finding that fact so important to mention, it was placed in several different policies. Given that Tilton is a living person I think it especially applies here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Coffee's actions are WAY too WP:POINTy and edit summaries too threatening. Let's discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Once again an entire mischaracterization. The section titled Important note at WP:POINT states the following: A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". In no way do I disagree with the moves I made, I think they are backed by policy. Nor was I trying to provoke opposition, in fact quite the opposite. I also was not specifically attempting to draw attention to this matter, that was a byproduct of editing a highly watched topic area. Also, none of my edit summaries were threatening; two out of the 350+ I made in handling this whole issue merely repeated a warning from an administrator and what is directly stated at WP:BLPREMOVE. That isn't a "threat" anymore than everyone who warns vandals, page blankers, or even BLP policy violators with those well known warning templates on editors' talk pages (i.e. this is your "final warning", "you may be blocked from editing"). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I do not genuinely believe you want to remove all WP content without an inline citation (contentious or not...which seems to be your contention). As such, it is pointy and disruptive. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Like it says at WP:V:

  Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

That's what should have happened here, at most. EEng 20:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exactly leaping to Coffee's defence here, because, as Cullen328 has said (among others) immediate removal is often not the solution to content that fails verification. That said, I am seriously concerned by many of the arguments in favor of these categories here, which fall foul of WP:NOR. Describing a person's identity based on parts of their heritage, in particular, is extremely dodgy. Between 3 and 10% of the US is multiracial in some form; self-identification is a complicated thing; and if you look very closely, "Is this a Jewish person" (or any other descriptor)" can start to have more answers than "Yes/No". Coffee probably ought to slow down, but many others here need to take his concern seriously. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is, or would complain about removal of bad data that is not sourced properly from articles, especially if it's a BLP. The issue is that this is mostly lists, coming from sourced articles, as Cullen pointed out. "Is this a Jewish person" is dealt with on the article page, and if there is an issue, it's removed. The point is that mass removal of hundreds without even checking the articles is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I recognize that this is a moot point, as User:Coffee has stopped mass removals, but these lists are, and have always been, filled with masses of unverified (and often incorrect) information. People adding the names are typically unaware of WP:V, or feel lists are exempt from them, and will often add ridiculous entries based on their own beliefs on the subject, or (in the worst cases), attempts at yellow badging or triple parenthesising individuals. Even in this discussion, I see people who apparently believe WP:LISTVERIFY does not really apply if some other Wikipedia article happens to state the individual is Jewish. I've spent over a decade trying to get these lists to adhere to WP:LISTVERIFY, yet many of them are still mostly or completely unsourced. My recent absence from Wikipedia was prompted by these two all-too-typical reverts[72][73], followed by this warning on my talk page. Given the events of the not-too-distant past, Wikipedia should be particularly insistent that editors at least adhere to WP:V when it comes to Lists of Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Coffee's mass removals reverted

Proposal: Coffee self-reverts all his recent Jewish-related mainspace edits.

• Support as proposer. I was going to go through all of Coffee's recent mainspace edits to check for errors, as I had done with the sampling above, but there are almost 350 edits in the last two weeks. I would fix the ones above, but Coffee's edit summaries each include a threat not to revert, so I don't want to edit those articles without knowing where consensus lies. I think Coffee should self-revert all of these removals, and if they want to, proceed again, but this time much more carefully, ensuring that the content removed is not already sourced or very easily verifiable. I believe "recent Jewish-related mainspace edits" goes back to 10:34, December 18, 2019 at Jeff Shell (who Coffee removed from Category:Jewish American sportspeople along with the sourced content that he's been inducted into the Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame [74], and sources not in the article show he signed a public letter supporting a presidential candidate that began "We are writing as American Jews ..." [75], and was listed by Reuters among "Jewish A-Listers" who made donations to another presidential candidate [76]). – Levivich 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that this is going a bit too far too quickly - putting the cart before the horse/"jumping the gun", as it were. Let's wait to see how consensus turns before moving to anything like this. In addition, it isn't in the normal business of AN to request anyone stop enforcing actual policies and guidelines. WP:CAT/R expressly requires more than one source as one source cannot be considered a consensus of sourcing, and WP:LISTVERIFY requires that each entry on a stand alone list must have inline citations. I also note that your portrayal of Coffee's removal from the Jeff Shell article was erroneous. You refer to JTA and Reuters whilst neglecting to mention that neither were in the article at the time of Coffee's edit. The Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame is not a reliable source.

With regards to comments above about Sergey Brin and Coffee's removal there: if such abundant sourcing existed for the claim, it should have been added back before adding back potential violations of WP:BLPCAT. The WP:BURDEN of providing sources is on the user who adds the content. It is also troubling that Debresser, who has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocks stemming from that, initiated an edit war over this rather than seeking consensus elsewhere first, even after I had given an explicit warning --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, is being Jewish contentious? Is that what BLP is referring to? A contentious issue is why Bill Cosby is no longer a spokesperson for Jello pudding pops, not this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it because pudding pops aren't kosher? EEng 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The hell they aren't! – Levivich 22:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I respect your view that this is going too far too soon, and figured some editors might support Proposal 1 but not 2. Personally, I think the status quo ante should be restored while the time-intensive process of going through these more carefully carries on, but reasonable people can disagree. I don't want to get too far into the content-dispute aspect of this issue, but brief response to your specific points: On Jeff Shell, those sources don't need to be in the article at the time of Coffee's edits; there is no rule on Wikipedia that every statement without an inline citation must be removed on sight, and this is not a contentious statement. In the examples I posted above, I found those sources in less than a minute of searching, on the first page or two of search results. I dispute that the SoCal Jewish Sports HOF is not a reliable source, or at least not reliable for whether it's significant/DUE that someone in sports is Jewish. Being inducted into the "Foo Hall of Fame" is a pretty good indicator that someone belongs in Category:Foo. Same as to Sergey Brin; there were sources attesting to his Jewish identity, and more sources are very, very, easily available. As to Debresser, you are flat wrong that they initiated an edit war. Reverting an edit is not "initiating an edit war" (and it's a little scary honestly that an admin said this; I hope you're not blocking editors for this). Reverting is a normal part of the WP:BRD process. Debresser didn't edit war in either of the two articles in which they reverted Coffee. I did notice you made the same accusation on Debresser's talk page earlier, and I think you are very far off base in this characterization. One revert does not an edit war make. – Levivich 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support He can raise issues on talkpages of articles where he sees issues and, if necessary, user talkpages of editors, whom he sees as being less than careful about certain things. Also, he can ask for help in addressing issues at WikiProjects like WP:JUDAISM e.g. That is what he should have done, and I agree with the proposal to have his recent edits reverted and go about things this way, and in the light of things that have been explained to him on my talkpage and in this discussion. I saw only two edits to articles myself, but one was a mistake he admitted to himself, and the other I absolutely disagree with as being a misguided edit. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC) I was just now shocked to see some of his edits above, especially the one that borders on incompetent editing. Removing Chomsky from a Jewish linguists list?! Debresser (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support especially considering that it's enforcing a guideline, NOT a policy and it's causing much too much concern and removing way too many false entries. As Debresser mentioned and I mentioned above, he can seek out help to remove those that need to be removed and get citations for those that need it. But Woody Allen being removed from a Jewish list? Come on, this isn't the way to do it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose although I am deeply concerned with Coffee's recent edits. I have spent significant time today trying to rebuild List of Jewish American authors, and I found many cases where excellent references verifying the listing were readily available in the biography, just waiting to be copied over. In other cases, the individual just came from a "Jewish family" but had no known involvement with Judaism during their careeer. So those writers should stay off the list. I am also troubled by the failure to differentiate between BLPs and biographies of people dead for decades, since our sourcing standards are more stringent for BLPs. I am troubled by any assertion that saying "Person A is Jewish" is contentious. That claim may be unsupported by references but there is nothing wrong with being Jewish. Calling someone a "dirty Jew" is actually contentious. Disclosure: I am Jewish and was married at a synagogue mentioned in this thread. I know that lists are articles but their content consists mostly of links to other articles where formatted references to support inclusion on a list are often readily available. There are two approaches to unreferenced content: delete indiscriminately in rapid-fire fashion, or make a good faith effort to provide references before considering deletion. The second approach is the one that truly improves the encyclopedia. Instead of reverting everything, Coffee should use individualized editorial judgment to fix the mess, and should stop editing like a human rubber stamp. I have spent a lot of time today trying to fix part of the mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish, and I think much of the difficulty here lies in that it can be easy to percieve some sort of Triple parentheses going on in these lists and categories. I see no easy solution, case-by-case is at least doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but that is complete baloney in the vast majority of these cases. Have you actually looked at a representative sample of the affected articles? If so, name a few where your implication applies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I was trying anything, but I do think there are readers (perhaps also editors) who will see pretty much any cat/list of Jews as some sort of Triple parentheses attempt. Of course, WP can't "do it" from that position. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

So life in 2020 means that people's Jewish identities need to be suppressed and concealed for our own good? Quite frankly, I find that insulting, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading what I think I am writing. I'll try it this way: People will at times find stuff they don't like on WP. Often them not liking it is no reason for WP to change it, but it can cause trouble and yelling anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The solution to that cannot possibly be to wreak havoc on Jewish categories and lists, can it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Case-by-case seems a better if slower way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think Coffee has been engaged in some much needed application of our policies and guidelines. In these times in which people are being targeted because of their religion or ethnicity, I think we must be very strict about the verifiability of religious and ethnic identity, even if that means erring on the side of temporarily removing people from lists and categories until the community is satisfied that reliable sources are available and that identifying an individual by religion, ethnicity or similar categories improves the encyclopedia without endangering the individual. - Donald Albury 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Donald Albury, you’re saying we should remove Allen Ginsberg from a list of Jewish poets for his safety??? Or remove Sergey Brin’s Jewish identity from his article ... to protect his safety??? Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t identify Jews as Jews in order to protect Jews? Where does this insane paternalistic RIGHTGREATWRONGS come from??? I mean what the hell did you guys read at OTRS that made you come to this conclusion? – Levivich 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Personally I think we should do all we can to ensure that knife-wielding lunatics can build their target lists with confidence. EEng 22:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. We wouldn't want anyone accidentally stabbing a gentile. – Levivich 00:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  That is not a fair characterization of this at all. If anything, we're trying to be sure that even people who are Jewish but don't want that to be part of their public identity aren't placed on a list or otherwise described (in a way that you seemingly understand could be used for targeting). I think we've always tried to only state someone's religious affiliations if they have self-identified or if a consensus of sources covers them that way, and to me that wasn't at all being applied in many of these cases (or at the very least, enough sources making that clear weren't there). If people wish to be described as Jewish (in the case of Brin in particular it seems from the sourcing you found that he does) then I'm all for including that on their article (and Brin already has a pretty good personal security team, due to his role at Google). Otherwise, I do indeed think a question of personal safety comes into play here. I find it entirely facetious to claim we want to create lists to help people be targeted, when the opposite is what is intended with these removals. Attacks on Jewish people have been on the rise, but even if we were discussing another religion being overly applied to article descriptions I would still think we need to apply the correct policies as written. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  So, as a threshold issue, the whole "personal safety" rationale for your edits would not apply to any of your edits that weren't to BLPs. This is why I agree with Cullen about wikilawyering. Among your "last 3" discussed above was someone who died two years ago; his personal safety is no longer a concern. Your edit summary on another of the 3 basically made the point that well, he was married by a rabbi, but that doesn't necessarily mean he identifies as Jewish... and I guess I can see that argument, although, you know, you might be a Jew if you're married by a rabbi. But aside from that, by the logic that we should, in some way, tighten the sourcing criteria for identifying someone as Jewish in order to reduce the number of people who are identified as Jewish on Wikipedia, in order to protect those people from being targeted by violent antisemites... the end result of doing this will be that, for any violent antisemite who is using Wikipedia as a way to identify potential victims, you have simply made the pool of victims smaller and more accurate. I suggest that while your aims are noble, your methods have not been fully thought through, and you know, Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. – Levivich 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I fully understand how identifying someone who has died 2 years ago will not risk their safety, I will contend though that it could risk the safety of those around them... of course that's mostly a concern to me if their family is named in their article (or even if not, if their family is well known in any form). As to Mayer's article in particular, since his children weren't named the issue there was just that I literally couldn't see in the sourcing provided that he did identify that way... that's after even reading through the giant amount of text he personally wrote about composers for the NYT. If you are aware of sourcing backing up the claim, do feel free to re-add it. To your other point, yes, you might be Jewish if you have a rabbi marry you, but we don't actually know that as rabbis can and have presided over mixed ceremonies. In my eyes, it is best to wait for a source that actually states such a description, so we can be sure it's accurate. For your final point, I mostly think to some degree the lists overall present such issues but we don't have a policy that seems to allow them to be deleted outright... so what I had to go with was removing anything not sourced so that at least we might be getting closer to listing people who personally are fine with self-identification as Jewish (or at least who are aware they might be getting identified that way). Obviously as I said in my edit summaries while editing such lists, I didn't look through the other ones provided yet so I don't know if those sources indicate the person wanted to identify that way. As far as making it easier for targeting, I get what you're saying but still disagree. I think if we only cover people who want to be publicly identified as Jews we then at least don't run the risk of stating people are who don't want to be known that way. In my eyes if someone wants to publicly self-identify as such, then they accept the risks with such a self-identification (that's not at all to say those risks should be there, it's just a current fact of how violent lunatics have acted throughout history)... if they don't publicly self-identify that way we are putting them into a level of risk they might not have considered. I know we're not here to right great wrongs, but I think we all come here to do what we do the best we can. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per baby/bathwater, and per proposer. ——SN54129 14:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Cullen's comments, it is a good chance to fix them first and then replace them. I don't think a user that has removed content on BLP concerns and policy concerns would or should themselves be instructed to revert those edits.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Guy (help!) 00:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There are only two options here: or revert or not revert. "Not revert and hope that Coffee will review his many edits and improve articles" is not one of the options here. So all those who say with Cullen that that is what should be done, should revisit this question. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I was originally in 2 minds about whether mass removals was the best option here. I've changed my mind though. As I expressed earlier, it's been a clear requirement that lists of living persons need to have inline citations for a long time now. I find it extremely unfortunate that experienced editors don't seem to be familiar with this requirement.

  I find it even more unfortunate that now it's been pointed out to them, rather than accepting that and working on fixing the problems, editors are arguing over whether it matters etc.

  I don't give a damn if a list says someone is Jewish, Chinese, Malay, Catholic, Muslim, a Scientologist, American, British, Kiwi, a businessperson, a poet, in media, in real estate, an All Black, a pornographic actor, a murderer or whatever else, it's a problem that needs to be fixed. We can debate the best way to fix it, we should not be debating the need to fix it. Yes, a list calling someone a pornographic actor let alone one calling someone a murderer is a much more urgent problem, but this doesn't meant the other cases don't need fixing.

  If editors here had clearly accepted there was a problem and agreed to work on it over the next few weeks or months, I may have supported mas reversion. But that isn't what happened so mass removals seem to be the only solution so that editors work on fixing the problem rather than ignoring it.

  Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nil Einne: Can you quote where it says that all BLP list entries must have inline citations? I do not see that at WP:MINREF. WP:LISTPEOPLE, or WP:BLP. What page have I missed? Thanks. – Levivich 05:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Levivich: A worthy question. As far as I'm aware that requirement is at WP:LISTVERIFY, and it doesn't just apply to material about living people. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      Coffee, LISTVERIFY does not say that all BLP list entries must have inline citations. That's why I asked for a quote. There is no such policy as far as I can see. LISTVERIFY gives the same four situations that MINREF provides–the same four you quoted in a table above. "All BLP list entries" is not one of the four criteria. The four, as far as I know, are the only four kinds of statements that require an inline citation. That Noam Chomsky (to take one example) is a Jewish American linguist does not require an inline citation, because it is not a statement that is (1) a direct quote, (2) challenged, (3) likely to be challenged, or (4) contentious. Unless, of course, you are actually challenging whether or not Chomsky is Jewish, American, or a linguist. So, I'm going to put him back on the list, without an inline citation, unless you're genuinely going to challenge that he belongs on that list. And I assume you'd be OK with that, because that is policy compliant. Yes? – Levivich 06:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      @Levivich: Yes. But might I say, adding it back without an inline citation is not really that great of an example for us to set. Would you mind me going to look for an inline citation and adding it back with one? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      And  Done [77]. Since he is a living person I made sure to find two fully reliable sources that state this before re-adding it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      Coffee, sure, but might I suggest Barsky, Robert F. (2007). The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower. MIT Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0262026246. – Levivich 06:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      GMTA :-) Thank you – Levivich 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: You'd note I specifically avoided the term policy or guideline when I discussed the requirement. It's been clear, since if you make a complaint at BLPN about a list lacking in-line citations, the solution is to find cites and remove any that lack them. It hasn't been to ignore the problem, and pretend it doesn't exist.

But if you want to get technical, by definition if someone removes or complains about something, it has been challenged. But also, you can pretty much assume when you make a claim about a living person being something and you completely lack any inline citations to demonstrate it, it is likely to be challenged by someone at some stage if you leave it around for long enough.

I'd also note that BLP is clear that contentious doesn't mean the information is negative, which a bunch of people seem to be assuming. Something positive or neutral can be contentious. I mean, I'm sure a bunch of people would consider Donald Trump being a business person or real estate developer as contentious, not because they consider these are bad things, but because they claim he was so bad at it it's not an accurate label. A recent example not involving a list is Bruce Pascoe. His claims of having indigenous Australian heritage seem contentious to some. It's not because anyone involved in the dispute claims there's anything negative about such a heritage, in fact if anything the opposite.

The final issue of course is that we should never rely on reader's personal knowledge. Perhaps it is true that for most people, Noam Chomsky being a Jewish American linguist is not something they would challenge or they would consider contentious. But there are always going to be readers who have never heard of whatever person in the list, and so would have no idea whether the claim is true, and so would reasonably challenge it and consider it contentious.

We should never tell readers to check out a non RS to verify something, especially not about a living person. And if the only citation in an article, for a claim about a living person is wikilink, then that's what we are telling them to do. It does not matter if the non reliable source itself has reliable sources to support the claims.

I've mentioned before in relation to other things that despite our ideals, mass removals of content is often disruptive. But this doesn't change the requirement that material that is contentious or likely to be challenged should have inline citations. For pretty much any case, but especially for BLPs, the ultimate solution to any dispute about uncited content is not to try and claim you do not need inline citations but find a fucking source and cite it.

Again, we can debate the best way to handle historic problems occurring either when we were a lot more lax, or by new editors. But it's seriously disturbing that experienced editors seem to think it's acceptable to have zero inline citations when making a claim about a living person. Find a fucking source and add it. Don't claim you don't need them. I can entertain WP:SKYISBLUE debates about ordinary stuff, but not about claims about living people.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I acknowledge I've used the wrong term. The key criterion is not so much that the are inline citations, but there are citations in the article/list. There should normally be inline citations. But if this was a dispute over a list where there was citations for the people in the list, but they just weren't inline, I could perhaps see some disagreement over whether these citations need to be moved inline. That said, I find such arguments fairly silly, since again, the easiest solution is simply yes, do move them inline. Maybe more importantly, the problem with no inline citations in lists, is it tends to get very difficult to verify whether there is actually a citation for someone. There may be rare exceptions e.g. if a list is a duplicate of some other RS list, or if a list is organised by RS e.g. List of people who lick cats has an "According to the NYT October 2019 list, According to the BBC January 2020 list". But those cases are few and far between. In cases where a list has multiple sources, if they aren't inline it's difficult to tie each person to one of the sources.

In any case, while I apologise for confusion over my using the wrong term, all this seems moot since AFAIK this is not the case here. None of the lists has a bunch of sources for each person which simply aren't inline. The sources may exist, but in another article or need to be found, i.e. potentially citable but not cited where it matters i.e. in the list where we are making the claim. That is a clear problem. We need a source in the list. It does not matter if the sources exist somewhere, or somewhere else. I would add that while I concentrated on lists, in reality what I said applies to any article. If you add a claim about some living person to some other article without a source, there's a fair good chance it will be reverted no matter if it's not particularly contentious. If you try to fight this by claiming that there's a source in the wikilinked article on the subject, you'll rightfully be frowned upon. Most editors will find the source from the wikilinked article and add it for you, but if you keep doing it to multiple articles, expect to receive some unwelcome attention. Again, I find it disturbing if this is news to any experienced editor.

Anyway, I had a quick look and some previous discussions I found are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive85#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors (funnily enough this was the first result the first time I search although it seems to vary between this and the next), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#List of Hispanic and Latino Americans, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Cosplay, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive85#List of Unification Church members, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#British ethnicity lists, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#People sometimes described as Scientologists who deny they are Scientologists and especially the later discussion, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive293#List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#List of people who escaped from prison and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#List articles according to religion or sexuality. I've tried to be fair and include any discussion I found that seemed relevant i.e. where the issue got some discussion even if there wasn't a clear consensus so have included some cases where the identification may be more controversial. (I didn't include cases where there was only discussion over how to handle highly controversial lists like people convicted of a crime without reference to general norms that I saw.) I would note that I also excluded most cases where IMO the discussion started off from the assumption that every entry needs a citation, and no one challenged that. As I said, there isn't always clear consensus but the general tone is IMO clearly that the lists need sources within the list. These normally should be inline.

I think most editors would apply this to lists of non living persons as well, but I'm purposely excluded them from the discussion. Such problems are understandably generally seen as less urgent and I did not want to distract from my main point namely poor BLP practice of thinking it's okay to make a claim about someone in an article (which includes a list) simply because there is a source in some other article or you're sure it exists. And again, I acknowledge we do unfortunately have many lists with poor practice. I'm not suggesting we start mass removing people from every one of them. However we do need to fix them at some stage. And more importantly, we should not be continuing the problem by claiming it is okay. I don't encourage WP:POINTY edits e.g. removing someone where you don't think it's contentious and don't wish to challenge it, nor for that matter adding someone back without sources this to prove there are cases where it won't be challenged or contentious, nor removing such re-additions etc etc.

P.S. Mostly OT but I did find Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ? which included Jimbo Wales arguing IMDb was an okay source, funny.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo Wales, and disagree with Cirt, in that 2010 conversation, particularly Jimbo's Rain Man example:

You are claiming that when we mention that a certain actor was in Rain Man (with a source which proves that fact) we can't say, for reader context, that Rain Man was a hit film, without finding a source for that particular claim? That this obviously true statement, positive about the subject of the article, should be removed? That linking to our article on Rain Man is not sufficient? ... Policy backs me up 100% here: [quotes from WP:V] ... That Rain Man was a hit film is not challenged nor likley to be challenged. Neither is it in any way "contentious". Insisting that every fact in a BLP be sourced is absolutely without precedent in policy.

But fundamentally, while–sure–it's better to have a source than not to have a source (at least on the page, not necessarily inline), it is not better remove (to take one example) Noam Chomsky from a list of Jewish American linguists, than to leave the entry there even if it's unsourced. That leaves the list article in much worse shape than before. Better to have Chomsky on there unsourced than to not have him there at all (because not having him there makes the other list entries WP:UNDUE, and presents our readers with wildly inaccurate information). Removing an unsourced entry because it doesn't have an inline citation–if it's not a WP:MINREF statement–is neither a good idea nor supported by policy, especially when done on a mass basis. – Levivich 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 350 edits might sound like a lot, but there are more than enough active editors around to watch those edits, and, if necessary, change something. I already fixed one of Coffee's edits (to Johnny Marks, uncontroversially I believe), and I agree with Cullen that from here forward the emphasis should be on adding impeccable sources, rather than wholesale deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think references are in order, but the manner chosen by Coffee is absurdly harsh and completely unnecessary. Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most egregious example. No one is challenging it (or should expect it to be challenged). It isn't contentious. And it's most certainly true. It's also CLEARLY references on the linked page that he's Jewish...NO ONE is contesting it. So, we're left with the justification we should remove content from lists because there isn't an inline citation reference or that it isn't 100% clear. If we're going to endorse such behavior, we're going to start deleting a large chunk of Wikipedia. The requirement is that there is a source. If it's mentioned in the linked page, that's sufficient for a list, IMHO. If there's someone on the list who ISN'T Jewish, that would be contentious. If there's some question, then I could understand asking for a reference. But coming in and making such sweeping changes without discussion or an attempt to ask for sources (and give time for cleanup) on such a benign topic is absurdly pedantic. Adding tags would have been more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The relevant policy is WP:POINT. I think its clear from the discussion above that the overwhelming numbe of instances wouldjustify inclusion on the lists, so the more rational course is to restore them, and go from there. Individual instances can be challenged individually. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, an Arb that supports the replacement of unverified claims, some of which are about living people, and supports Proposal: Coffee self-reverts all his recent Jewish-related mainspace edits. forcing a user with good faith policy concerns to replace them and publish them to the www. @DGG: Perhaps you should be the one, why don't you be the one to do it then? Govindaharihari (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  If you think this involves unverified claims, you haven’t read the thread. – Levivich 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have read plenty of the thread to know there are unverified claims. If the new position is that anyone can be added to any list without a supporting link and it is to simply be assumed there is a link somewhere on this wiki that supports the claim and anyone that challenges the claim should be the one to do the investigations to find them then that seems like something we should clarify with a community discussion.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Repeating my reasoning for Proposal 1 above: WP:V says:

  Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

So maybe as material is restored {cn} tags might be added, but given that we're all here that should be decided here first. EEng 20:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Forcing anyone to self-revert their removal of challenged material is a fundamentally invalid proposal. Editors are, even legally, responsible for their additions to articles. Forcing anyone to add something to an article is incompatible with the responsibility requirement of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that, but anyways, somebody else can do the honors. The question is if the edits should be reverted or not. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• ToBeFree, I agree, but in this case, the material is not being challenged at all. Nobody is challenging that Florence Meyer Blumenthal, Isaias W. Hellman, Norman Cahners, Sergey Brin, Noam Chomsky, Allen Ginsberg, or Woody Allen are Jewish. It's not even unsourced. The entire point of this proposal is that, because of the high rate of false positives resulting from these mass removals, they should all be reverted, and then Coffee (or anyone else who wants to) should remove only those entries which are actually being challenged. – Levivich 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing that was unsourced on any of the lists was removed. The content has been challenged, that was why it was removed. If you or anyone else disputes the removals please cite the claim and replace them. This is not just about the lists Coffee felt to act on this is about all our lists in general, they all need the same treatment. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, this isn't just about lists. I'm serious when I say, you have not been reading this thread closely enough. Of the articles I just linked to, the first four (Blumenthal, Hellman, Cahners, Brin) were articles where Coffee removed "Jewish" even though the information was sourced in the article, either inline or elsewhere. The remaining three (Chomsky, Ginsberg, Allen) were removed from lists, but their Jewish identity is not (and is not likely to be) challenged, so per WP:MINREF, there is no basis to remove them from lists just because they don't have an inline citation. If, in fact, someone where to challenge whether Chomsky, Ginsberg, and Allen, were Jewish, I would say that challenge would be made in bad faith, and would be disruptive, because those three are very famous for being Jewish. There may be other list entries that could be or even should be challenged, but along with those, many entries were removed (such as Chomsky, Ginbserg, and Allen) that are basically un-challengable. This is the reason why the edits should be reverted, and editors should start again, only removing those entries that they actually mean to challenge. – Levivich 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  If anyone believes that we should remove all unsourced entires from all lists across Wikipedia, they should start an RfC to see if there's consensus for doing so. They should not just unilaterally begin mass removals of list entries. Furthermore, if they do start unilaterally beginning mass removals of list entries, perhaps they could start with, say, lists of Pokemon, rather than lists of accomplished Jews. Is this really a lot to ask? – Levivich 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing is unchallengable if it is unverified at its location. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, that's not true. I cannot "challenge" that the earth is round, even if "the Earth is round" appears somewhere without an inline citation. For me to do so would be disruptive and in bad faith. And–again–the first four examples I just posted a couple comments above were verified in their location. – Levivich 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have not been through all Coffee's removals, I am sure they were all done in good faith though. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have been through some of them, and I've posted some examples to save you some time. Just a thought: maybe you could go through at least those examples before you oppose the proposal. – Levivich 20:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I will never support the replacement of unverified names at source to any list once they are removed in good faith. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, there are plenty of lists that still have concerns and I support that we improve them as well but the fact is that these lists have been improved and that is great imo, we as editors should now work to expand them and keep then at a high quality. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  List of Jewish American linguists was not improved by removing Noam Chomsky. List of Jewish American poets was not improved by removing Allen Ginsberg. Etc. In each case, the lists were rendered incomplete and undue as a result of removing some of the most notable examples of the category. That's why they should be put back, and instead of mass-removing everything unsourced, editors should go one-by-one and either add {{cn}} tags or add a source, or removing only the ones they intend to actually challenge. – Levivich 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  List of Jewish American linguists was improved, Noam Chomsky is back there now loud and proud with two supporting links, that is an improvement and other names are being replaced with supporting links which is great. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Please don't be pedantic. That improvement isn't a result of the removal of Noam Chomsky. That's a result of his replacement after discussion between me and Coffee in this thread. Similarly, List of Jewish American poets has been improved by Cullen (thank you, Cullen), which in no way makes Coffee's removals proper. Again, if you think we should remove all unsourced entries and put it upon other editors to replace them with sources, start an RfC and see if that has consensus, because our current PAGs do not document any consensus for removing all unsourced entires (note Jimbo's comments about this very thing from ten years ago quoted above; note the language of WP:MINREF). I, for one, lament that Cullen has been spending his time sourcing the obvious, like that Allen Ginsberg is Jewish, when could have been doing something else somewhere else that would have been more productive. But of course it's every editor's choice how they spend their time. I don't think editors should be able to choose to spend their time removing all unsourced entries from Jewish lists. – Levivich 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, many thanks indeed to Cullen for any time he has spent working to improve these lists. When I have time I will look at a few and contribute also. 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)

  That's great, because there are almost 350 to go through, so we'll need Cullen, and you, and me, and a whole bunch of other people to spend a whole bunch of time going through all of them. Or, alternatively, these mass removals could be restored, and editors could just add a {{cn}} tag, or just remove the ones they actually intend to challenge, which would leave far fewer than 350 for other editors to go through. – Levivich 20:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  A high quality cited list with less names is an improvement in all ways imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the material with a cite or start a discussion at the WP:V talkpage to amend the policy. Otherwise your continued advocating for replacing uncited material is a deliberate attempt to flout policy. If you continue to advocate for uncited material to be restored to article space I will look to have you sanctioned under the multiple discretionary sanctions that apply (BLP and I/P will apply to at many of the articles you want uncited information reverted to). Consider yourself warned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  no need for any warnings here, there has been no editwarring and only comments and discussion, all good. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: All information in lists should contain citations, this should especially apply in the case of BLPs policy supports the removal whole sale. Adding {{cn}} doesn't mitigate the BLP issues. The policy says that any information challenged may be removed, the information was challenged and removed. Great now go back and add sources and include the information. Additionally claiming someone is any religion with out a citation could be contentious in my opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm commenting in my capacity as an individual OTRS agent, though not on behalf of the OTRS team. I've reviewed the relevant tickets concerning this matter, and while I obviously can't disclose their contents, I feel that the actions that were taken here are justified, and were an appropriate response to the OTRS tickets in question, and in line with relevant policies. Even if there is some disagreement here on whether Coffee's interpretation of policy is correct (I believe it is), I, like others, disagree that an editor should be made to reinsert material that has perceived BLP issues, and re-insertion of relevant material should be made carefully. As a sidenote, it worries me that several separate OTRS complaints from article subjects had to be made for this issue to be addressed, and as a community I feel we should reflect on the standards we hold and apply to our articles, not least of all BLPs, where we should be especially careful on enforcing the use of reliable sources. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven Crossin, do you believe that the relevant ORTS tickets justified the removal of deceased individuals from the lists discussed here? in particular, individuals who have been deceased for 20+ years?Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look to me like most of these removals were made with much thought. Only a few seem to have been removing material that was controversial in any way. In most cases, the article text itself supported the identification, so I can't believe that mass removals were warranted. Krow750 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I went to one of these lists to try to replace names with references and the first name random name Peter Achinstein I tried to replace I couldn't find a support for it, perhaps others can help, there was no support for the claim in the article either, that was the first place I looked and not finding support there I searched the www and couldn't find one there either. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Gov, for bringing this up because I think it's a great case study. Peter Achinstein was married by a rabbi in a Jewish temple and was faculty at Yeshiva University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but I haven't seen a source that explicitly says he is Jewish, or an explicit self-identification from him. While I can understand why someone might conclude he's Jewish, removing him from List of Jewish American philosophers seems like the right thing to do, absent clearer sourcing. And I'd have no objection if Coffee had removed him from the list.

  But along with Achinstein, Coffee removed 69 other entries from List of Jewish American philosophers, bringing it from 74 entries to 4 entries. The first eight entries removed (each of which had a photograph for the sidebar) were... (drumroll...)

  1. Judith Butler, whose Jewish identity is cited in her article to an interview in which she says "I am a nice Jewish girl ..." [78]
  2. Stanley Cavell's (d. 2018) Jewish identity is cited in his article to a book he wrote, where on p. 7 he writes, "As a Jew ..." [79]
  3. Noam Chomsky has been discussed to death already above
  4. Arthur Danto's obituary (d. 2013) in The Times of Israel [80] notes he was raised in a Reform Jewish home. Danto has been quoted as saying "I am completely Jewish." [81]
  5. Hubert Dreyfus (d. 2017) was a well-known philosopher. Here he's mentioned in a book published academic publisher Brill Publishers, entitled Jewish Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century: Personal Reflections. Here he is listed among Jewish philosophers in an "Introduction to the Study of Religion" published by EdTech Press.
  6. Paul Gottfried had a source in article titled "Paul Gottfried: Don't call me the 'godfather' of those alt-right neo-Nazis. I'm Jewish" [82]
  7. Joseph Margolis... reading his essay about his identity [83], I'm not sure whether or not he should be on the list or identified as Jewish in the article, since he says he identifies as "a Martian Jew".
  8. Michael Walzer's article is sourced to... a journal article, in the Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, entitled "Michael Walzer's Secular Jewish Thought" [84]

  So that's the first eight. Only after that do we get to Achinstein. Now, I could go through all 70 removals and see who's Jewish and who's not, but why should I have to? Why can't Coffee go through these, instead, and just remove the ones that aren't supported? In the meantime, our list of Jewish American philosophers makes it seem as if there are only four rather than seventy, and the four that are listed are the most notable, but it omits giants like Dreyfus and Chomsky. We are seriously misleading our readers. This is why I think all 70 should be put back, and then anyone who wants to can go through and challenge (remove) whichever entries they want to challenge. But not all 70 at once. – Levivich 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  and thank you Levivich for the links, I have returned these to the list with the links. I do feel your concerns but we can also look at this as an opportunity to create a quality well cited, unchallengeable list that will be immeasurably better than what was removed, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support reverting. I think removing the unsourced content (as Coffee did) is fine, but only if you know that the removed content was wrong. That was clearly not the case here. Almost all of the removed content was correct, at least in the list I checked. I think such removals would be defensible if the removed unsourced content was contentious or defamatory. But it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Cameron11598 above; plus, the milk is already spilled, let's clean it up properly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I said above these lists are, and have always been, filled with masses of unverified (and often incorrect) information. The people who add names to these lists are typically unaware of WP:V, or feel lists are exempt from them, and will often add ridiculous entries based on their own beliefs on the subject, or (in the worst cases), attempts at yellow badging or triple parenthesising individuals. Even in this discussion, I see people who apparently believe WP:LISTVERIFY does not really apply if some other Wikipedia article happens to state the individual is Jewish. I've spent over a decade trying to get these lists to adhere to WP:LISTVERIFY, yet many of them are still mostly or completely unsourced. My recent absence from Wikipedia was prompted by these two all-too-typical reverts[85][86], followed by this warning on my talk page. Given the events of the not-too-distant past, Wikipedia should be particularly insistent that editors at least adhere to WP:V when it comes to Lists of Jews. Anyone wishing to revert User:Coffee should provide a reliable source for every name they re-add. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If these entries were tagged and then a reasonable amount of time went by, I agree they should be removed. This course of action guts Wikipedia from content. The good thing about unsourced statements is that they can be sourced by subsequent editors. I could take almost any article that is not a good article, and remove at least half of it. Is that what we want? Is that what we should do? I don't think so. Nor does the community think so. Likewise in this case. They should be added back into the content of Wikipedia, maximum with tags. That way we can improve this project, rather than maim it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

This kind of content is often incorrect, and typically remains unsourced for years. When I've tagged large numbers of these items in the past, I almost inevitably find that, several months later, none have been sourced. Removing (often WP:BLP violating) material from an article that has been unsourced for years does not "maim" an article, any more than tagging it, and coming back in several months to remove it (as you suggest in your comment). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement that "this kind of content is often incorrect", based on the few articles Coffee had edited I reviewed before coming to this discussion, I had no problem sourcing them. A few editors have stated they are willing to help improve articles from the list. It will take a while, but I think that it is better to improve than to remove. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These lists had years (some even over a decade) to be fixed (and most had been tagged with references needed/unreferenced tags for at least several months), so I'm slowly getting tired of the hyperbole getting repeated here (ensuring we properly source our lists and articles isn't "maiming" our website). I also find it worrisome that no one has shown a reason to reintroduce the hundreds of removals I had to make of original research/synthesis/etc that were being used to make contentious claims on BLPs, (that had nothing to do with the lists at all...) yet are proposing or arguing for those to be re-added in a way that would absolutely contravene WP:BLPREMOVE (and no, finding sources in a few limited cases that weren't present in the articles during removal, does not make a logical argument for reintroducing hundreds of BLP violations... it merely is how the process on restoring challenged material is supposed to work: if there can be found multiple sources to verify the information, then it can be re-added).

The repetitive claim, that {{cn}} tagging is a permitted way around years old WP:V/WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:MINREF/WP:BLPRS/WP:CAT/R/WP:OR violations on contentious information, is also clearly erroneous. Literally zero of our polices say it is an approved practice to just tag contentious/challenged information regarding persons (especially living persons, which this proposal majoritively covers); whataboutism is not a substitute for actual policy.

Furthermore, there is not a single policy which permits challenged (via removal) information to be re-added to articles without proper sourcing (especially when that includes BLP violations), nor is there a policy that says 'a limited consensus at AN can change how our established policies on verification of challenged content are followed'... regardless of the fact that you and others here have been wholly unable to build any actual consensus.

If you or anyone else wants to change what our policies state (including but not limited to: WP:BURDEN's requirement that anyone restoring challenged material to our main space must provide a direct inline citation, or WP:STICKTOSOURCE which requires not just an inline citation but also a reliable source that directly and explicitly verifies the challenged claims), I suggest RFCs be opened at the relevant Wikipedia talk pages. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Since, as you claim, policies and guidelines don't support what editors here seem to want, then it must be a matter of common sense.

I repeat, you are welcome to bring egregious cases to my/our attention on my talkpage or at WT:JUDAISM, without flooding please, and we'll be happy to help out. Seeking help is what you should have done in the first place, rather than decide you know better what needs to be done than all the other editors who added information and/or left it in. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What the community of editors on this encyclopedia want has already been dictated by policy. If you don't like it, or think that the limited amount of editors here who have supported this proposal (who by no means can be considered to have made a consensus against the many that have opposed this proposal) have logical reasons to change the policies, go build an actual consensus to change them. Seeking confirmation that the policies were not being adhered to was exactly what was done before I took any of these steps, regardless of whether that was done via a venue you would prefer. Nowhere in our policies does it state enforcement of them has to be run through a WikiProject first (and especially when dealing with BLP violations); that isn't just common sense, it's common knowledge. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, I just went through above the first 8 on list of philosophers, not some random cherry pick, and the sources were in the articles when you removed them, and they weren't all BLPs, either. – Levivich 22:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

and also, please stop using the word contentious here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll use the word contentious anytime it applies; regardless of the fact that absolutely no one has bestowed to you the ability to tell others what to say on our site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

sure, and being Jewish isn't contentious, it may be unverified it some instances. Further, I didn't tell you what to do, I asked you to stop using that term. No need to get snippy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first 8 on the list were not sourced directly with an inline citation, so that is not a convincing argument. Further, your proposal is not just to readd verification/undue/OR issues to articles and lists about dead people, the majority are most certainly alive. So, the cherry picked arguments about the lists (when you want to revert all edits including the hundreds to articles about living people) certainly do not convince me to add back hundreds of BLP violations (which as I'll state again, are the definite majority of the issue at hand). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, why can't you just add back the non-BLPs then? – Levivich 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The full question is: why can't you just add back policy violations to non-BLPs then? The answer to that is so obvious I'm not going to bother stating it. Our policies dictate what happens after unsourced or poorly sourced content is challenged: if proper sourcing can be found and presented clearly with inline citations, then contentious claims can be re-added. I see no reason to change that standard here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Jewish American authors - a case study

I appreciate the kind words in the section above about my contributions to rebuilding List of Jewish American poets but that was an accidental side effect, as it were, of my efforts to rebuild List of Jewish American authors after Coffee wreaked havoc on that list at 23:45 30 December 2019 (UTC).

Coffee was editing at a rapid clip at that time, spending only a few minutes each to devastate many Jewish American lists. In this case, he removed 145 authors from this list in a single edit. Let me make it perfectly clear that this list had unreferenced entries, as did the others, and clearly these lists need work. The question is what kind of work should editors be doing in such cases? Thousands of lists have similar problems and also need work. I am not opposed to doing that work myself as can be seen by my recent edit history which shows that I have spent most of my 2020 editing so far trying to rebuild this particular list. I have added 71 authors back to that list, all with references and many with two references. I have devoted a lot of research time and mental energy to save this list the right way, as I have done with at least one other major list in the past.

Coffee is quite fond of quoting cherrypicked sections of policies and guidelines over and over again, presumably under the theory that if an argument is not persuasive the first time, he can convince other editors by repeating the argument verbatim seven times. I don't know about the rest of you, but that tactic does not work for me. Let me quote a portion of our core content policy Verifiability, which offers some very wise advice that should inform any further discussion of this fiasco.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Coffee's edits to Jewish American lists were as if that first sentence contained the word "must" instead of "may", and as if none of those other sentences had been written, debated and accepted as policy. It was almost as if he was a bot operating under the simpleminded algorithm "no reference for list entry = deletion mandatory". Consider the horrifying damage that such indiscriminate deletionism causes. With a single mouseclick, Coffee eliminated Nobel prizewinner Isaac Bashevis Singer, Pulitzer prizewinner Bernard Malamud, Pulitzer prizewinner Herman Wouk, and Chaim Potok, an Orthodox rabbi who wrote a smash bestselling novel The Chosen, which became a Hollywood movie. He also removed very well known American Jewish women authors Gertrude Stein and Susan Sontag. All these writers are dead so there are no BLP concerns. There is no need to provide a reference that the clear daytime sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France or that the apple is a fruit, because those facts are self-evident to intelligent people. Similarly, it ought to be self-evident to anyone with even a passing familiarity with 20th century American literature that those six highly notable Jewish American writers should not have been removed with a single mouseclick. The best solution would have been for Coffee to provide those references himself. That is precisely what I have done. The second best solution would have been to add "citation needed" tags. The third best solution would have been to do nothing and move on, since these claims are self-evidently true to intelligent editors at all familiar with the topic, and there were better things for Coffee to do at the time. Instead, Coffee chose the worst possible "solution", mass deletion of those writers by a single click of a button.

When criticized, Coffee responded with elaborate wikilawyering replete with his usual repetitiveness. Questions were met with evasiveness, dogmatic pedantry, and an insistence that his radically deletionist edits were somehow mandated by policy, and intended to protect "the Jews". In my opinion, Coffee has shown himself not competent to edit Jewish topics, or any type of list. I will leave it to uninvolved editors to craft a specific solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Devastate". "Quite fond of". "Worst possible". A large wall of redundant text complaining about "elaborate wikilawyering". Not helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your criticism of my style of writing, ToBeFree, but would even more appreciate you engaging with the substance of the issue in a positive way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my comment didn't help either. I just find this hard to watch, as one point of complaint appears to be the length of some responses. If I understand correctly, your position is already clear and many editors are in support. No need for a long essay to be added, it seems, at least if it is full of biased terms. Those who disagree have already voiced disagreement, those who agree have already voiced agreement. This should not end with a long accusative essay by one main participant of the dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My initial comments were made in the very early stages of evaluating the magnitude of the problem, and before working several days to fix it. I thought that more informed commentary would be useful at this point, as well as a progress report. Please let us know what work you are also doing to improve list articles, ToBeFree, and thank you for your contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen328, this is a good case study. Coffee removed ~ 145 unsourced names from the list. Over a four day period you sourced and added back ~ 76, slightly more than half. In the nine days since, you've added 0 names to this list, and 0 names to any other of the lists Coffee removed names from. You know why? Because it's boring, tedious work to actually source stuff, so you moved on to things you liked doing better. It's easy to say "these people are obviously Jews, and it's easy to source them", but it's very time-consuming and dull to actually do it. Persi Diaconis and Michael Freedman, both living people, were on List of Jewish American mathematicians from the second it was created in 2005 until Coffee removed it 2019, over 14 years unsourced. Are they Jewish? I don't know, and there aren't any sources in the List or their individual articles that state they are. Had Coffee not removed them, I suspect they would have stayed on the lists unsourced for another 14 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Add sister cities to Las Vegas article.

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

---

Las Vegas has sister cities and it's not mentioned in the Las Vegas article. I can't add it because it's locked. http://en.sistercity.info/sister-cities/Las%20Vegas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.107.180 (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Make your case on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And use WP:EDITREQUEST after posting the relevant content along with references, on the talk page.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Would an admin mind taking a look at this Teahouse question and check that I didn't give an incorrect answer or otherwise make things out to be more complicated than they need to be. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have roughly merged the two articles. Although one article was newer than the other it contained significantly more content so I merged into that article. The answer you gave at THQ was very good, but I think you could have left out the parts about history merges because it complicated the answer and it is rarely possible anyway. Best — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that Martin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That particular issue has been dealt with. However, there was also another issue at the Teahouse at about the same time that looks similar but is different, and that is two articles that appear to be about the same individual, but are about different individuals with the same name who can be confused. In the case in point, it had to do with two individuals named John Shields in the same line of work, as chefs. What I will repeat is that it is very important to be sure that two people with the same name or similar names either are the same person or are different persons. This situation comes up frequently at Articles for Creation, and usually it involves two articles on the same person, either by the same editor or by different editors. However, occasionally there can be confusion because two different people in the same line of work have the same name. My only conclusion is use care. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested changes to fully protected example pages

I would like to suggest the following changes to the following two fully protected pages:

---

Page: User talk:Example

Changes / reasoning:

• Added link to talk page guidelines for those new users who want to learn more.
• "I'll archive any WARNINGS on a subpage" is no longer needed. The page is fully protected and won't get any warnings.
• "Postings made here are unlikely to be seen or receive a response" is unneeded; protected = no posts.
• "Search archives" is unneeded; no posts = no archived posts.
• "User:Example/Talk message" links to a deleted page.
• Why put the TOC on the right? This page should resemble what a new user sees on their own user talk page.
• Replaced "*" with ":". We don't want to encourage over-use of "*"

Result (ready to cut and paste as a replacement for the current content):

<noinclude>{{Pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{nobots}}
This is an example of a user talk page. See '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]''' for help on using user talk pages.

==Example discussion title==
Example message
:Example reply
::Example reply to reply
:::Example reply to a reply to a reply
:Example second reply
::Example reply to second reply

---

Page: User:Example/Lipsum

Changes / reasoning:

• Added link to user pages guideline for those new users who want to learn more.
• "Note: This page is not for writing your articles. Go to your personal sandbox, please" is no longer needed. The page is fully protected and won't get any attempts to put an article here.
• "User:Example/tabs" links to a deleted page.

Result (ready to cut and paste as a replacement for the current content):

<noinclude>{{Pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{nobots}}
This is an example of a subpage to a user page. See '''[[Wikipedia:User pages]]''' for help on using user pages.

{{Lorem ipsum}}

---

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

These changes seem reasonable, so I've done them. Requesting that this not be archived immediately in case there are any objections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

articles moved to drafts, possibly unneccesarily

I just created some articles for specific countries in 2020. an editor moved them to draft space, even though some articles already had some specific information in them. the editor claimed that the articles needed to be moved to draft space, due to lack of content.

however, we already allow current year in country articles to be created in mainspace, even if they have little or no content!!! here are some examples: 2019 in Libya, 2019 in Sudan.

I'm perfectly fine to wait a bit before moving these articles to the mainspace, but ultimately, I feel there should be no obstacle or constraint on all of them being moved to mainspace, regardless of whether they have content or not. you can view the message that I received here: User_talk:Sm8900#2020_in_Syria_moved_to_draftspace

is that okay? here's my contribs history Sm8900 (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that they should exist or that similar articles should be created as explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Articles are added to the mainspace all the time, but the fact that they were added doesn't mean they should've been added or were "allowed" to be added. It could just as easily mean that simply weren't noticed to have been added or weren't properly assessed as to whether they should've been added. So, I wouldn't try to argue that you should be allowed to create articles similar to those two you've mentioned above, but rather argue that whatever article you're trying to create should be upgraded to article status based on its own merits. Being moved back to the draft namespace doesn't mean you cannot continue to work on the page and improve it so that its ultimately moved back to the article namespace. Draft:2020 in Syria contains no real encyclopedic content whatsoever at the moment; if, however, you can expand the article into at least a viable WP:STUB, then it will have a better chance of staying in the article namespace the next time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

okay, thanks for reply. have now managed to get 2020 in Israel article actually started. what a relief!!! on to the others soon. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I have now created a number of 2020 articles for a number of countries. Anyone who wishes to alert authorities, delete these entries, blank the page, move them to draft space, etc, should consider doing so!!!! we certainly don't want Wikipedia to be derailed by people who think this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or that we should be bold and assume good faith, now!!! do we?

there, I used a tag. so everything is kosher here. sorry. anyone here got a cookie? :-) :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The only real criterion for getting out of draftspace is that the page isn't WP:LIKELY to get deleted if it were in the mainspace. All these things about needing to have a certain size or that the sources need to be in English or that all the refs have to be formatted a certain way (yes, AFC folks have said things like that in the past) are just made-up rules that you won't find in any written policy.

Articles in draftspace get significantly fewer edits, less improvement, and less scrutiny than articles in the mainspace. If you want to build Wikipedia, you need to keep articles in the mainspace as much as possible. I think we should be discouraging editors from moving articles to draftspace when, like these, they aren't at risk of deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks, WhatamIdoing. agreed. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

History merging

Who except me does any history-merging? (see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Completed requests) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Based on WP:RFHM and the last 1000 entries on Special:Log/merge, you, Wbm1058, and I do most of the history merges. I don't log anything on WP:RFHM unless it was requested there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• I will if asked, most of mine are via WP:RFPI though. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Most of my merges come through WP:AFC and/or by request. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• I do, when the topic fancies. I'm currently on another kick. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• I do history merges sometimes as well. Graham87 06:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 has retired

FYI Onel5969 has packed it in. Not an admin, though always thought they should have been. At over 40,000 of the +100,000 new WP articles patrolled last year, will be a big blow to WP:NPP, and I suspect their retirement will directly, or indirectly, require a lot more work from the rest of the community. Britishfinance (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD might possibly be closed?

Please consider whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff might be decided and closed. The AfD arises from a deletion request from the subject, who asserts the article has the capacity to cause her harm at this particular time - diff, OTRS confirmation. This being the case, and given the current state of !votes on the AfD, it seems to me to warrant speedy consideration. (Full disclosure: I'm the nominator in the AfD.) thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Requests for closure. El_C 01:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly, in light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive, should we consider the subset of Biografer (talk · contribs)'s contributions that have not been significantly edited by others for WP:CSD#G5 speedy deletion? There are a lot of them, but the SPI notes issues with both accuracy and close paraphrasing, and I've definitely seen some of the accuracy issues in my own spot-checking. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen similar problems. A good many of them are in my field, and I'm checking. I don't want to make too quick or automatic a judgment about G5. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You may not want to make quick and automatic judgements, but it appears that JJMC89 has already been doing so, deleting many articles, in many cases in violation of the requirement for G5 that articles have no substantial edits by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It would appear the subject no longer wants the article deleted, FWIW. (per Talk:Corinna Löckenhoff) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And with that, some article edits, some AfD discussion, and a blocked sock, the !vote has swung back the other way - now should just be left to run. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks

Administrators are trying out new tools over at the test wiki. – Levivich 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Following the RfC - partial blocks will be coming soon. If you are an admin and want to practice with this interface feel free to drop me a note at testwiki:User_talk:Xaosflux and I'll flag you for temporary admin on testwiki to try it out. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the follow-up RfC to develop policy? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the closing didn't require it to move forward, but said it should occur. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest if there's a policy to develop, you head over to Wikipedia:Partial blocks? Can I also recommend the several comments about writing just enough to get it merged into current policy instead of re-inventing the wheel? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that the feature has been enabled; sysops may want to test it out on User:ThisIsaTest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A heads up for anyone who is testing this – if used on admins it will prevent them from accessing the block interface altogether. They will not be able to block/unblock other people. The only exception is if it's a self-block. (I know this because I can't issue a retaliatory parblock on SQL on testwiki right now.) – bradv🍁 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And everyone else might want to dewatchlist User:Thisisatest while admins play with their new toys  :) ——SN54129 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Related: T242633. SQL^{Query me!} 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this has been a known issue for a while, correct ticket is T208965. SQL^{Query me!} 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nocturnal306

User:Nocturnal306 globally locked due to Long-term abuse, sockpuppet of Abdullah Zubayer, Paid editing, COI and violating other numerous policies. Please remove all user rights. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, local rights removed. ~ mazca ^talk 19:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitelist Request

Resolved

 – Duplicate request

Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/01/30/obama-to-speak-at-baltimore-mosque-where-imam-condoned-suicide-bombings/ Link requested to be whitelisted: https://dailycaller.com/2016/01/30/the-us-mosque-obama-has-chosen-for-his-first-presidential-visit-has-deep-extremist-ties/

I want to use the links in the Islamic Society of Baltimore article, specifically in the Controversies section. I need them because I'm trying to show the viewpoints of different news media for a topic, although they seem to be blocked. I will quote the news outlets, and will not use them for factual information. I made a request elsewhere about a week ago, to no response, so I decided to ask here. Thank you! —  Melofors  TC 

You already have a request open at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Please be patient. Raising the same request in multiple places can be construed as forum shopping. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination)

No administrator is noticing the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination), What will happen to the article Sab Kichu Bhene Pare? The article which is of a book does not contain any strong reference in English-language. শাহরিয়ার কবীর শিশির (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, as all participation that favoured delete was by blocked sockpuppets and IP addresses misrepresenting the notability guideline, I have closed it as keep based on consensus of the other editors involved. ~ mazca ^talk 10:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mazca. The OP above, who wanted to delete this article (and therefore may be linked with the LTA activity from the last two AfDs - both of which had significant socking), has started deleting material amounts of referenced content in the article. Not my area of expertise, but something very odd going on here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there definitely may be some more socking involved—this seems like an unexpectedly controversial area—but the appropriateness of the poorly-phrased content removed does seem quite debatable, there's certainly nothing completely wrong here. ~ mazca ^talk 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject history needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.
• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!
• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!
• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900, have you found the WP:REVIVE advice yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to unblock Ricky81682

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is a former administrator who was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee for misuse of multiple accounts in 2016, and subsequently checkuser-blocked. Following an appeal to ArbCom by email, we have posted a motion to unblock Ricky81682 for discussion on-wiki. Comments and discussion are welcome on the motion page. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ricky81682 unblocked.

Creating MLBPitchingCoaches Template

I realize for whatever reason I cant create this because the word "MLBP" is blocked from creating articles yet simply I would like to be able to create this and cannot.--Jack Cox (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Cox: Is this about Template:MLBPitchingCoaches? – Ammarpad (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is--Jack Cox (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to squish the name of the template: how about Template:MLB pitching coaches? this avoids the blacklisted sequence— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded on the template name; there has been an active push in the last year or two to make templates read more like text (and less like old-school file names that wouldn't allow spaces). Primefac (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It was blacklisted eight years ago because of hoaxes - looks like no additions to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wetsoap since then. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-gaining Extended Confirmed status

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

---

Hi, just around 6 weeks ago I gained an extended confirmed status, however, it got removed by Laser brain because I "gamed the system". I was on over about 440 edits and regrettably made nonsense edits to get to 500 edits quicker. Since then I have made over 500 more edits with none being nonsense. At the time that I made those nonsense edits I didn't believe or expect it to be wrong, however, in hindsight I realised that it was a way of "cheating" and, therefore, was not ideal. Except for those nonsense edits (which was around 60), I have been regularly making as many up to date edits, reverted vandalism, made corrections and removed puffery or unsupported claims. Thus, I believe that I deserve to have my Extended Confirmed status regained as I have learnt from that lesson and have carried out the positive activities that are stated above. As I was told that I should wait a month before attempting to request back my Extended Confirmed Status, I also believe that now is very appropriate for this discussion. Thank you. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Isaacsorry: as you have met the normal threshold. Be sure to edit with care, and I also recommend you review Help:Archiving a talk page and change the way you archive your user talk page (the "archive to history" you are using is generally the least friendly way to manage your page). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikihow

Please can the admin add wikihow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.142.75 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add it to what? WikiHow isn't a Wikimedia project and therefore isn't affiliated with us in any way, so we have no business referring people to it from this site. Deor (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My restrictions

I was wondering of someone could tell me what editing restrictions I am still subject to. There apparently is a Tea Party movement restriction of some sort, which was extended to a topic ban on American Politics, with that restriction being reduced to 1RR/week (with removing spam, as well as vandalism, excluded), and there's a Gun control topic ban, which I'm planning to appeal for reduction of. Are there any other restrictions I should be aware of?

For that matter, is there a centralized board for editing restrictions, or should there be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is one at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which mentions the Tea Party movement topic ban. The Gun control topic ban isn't logged there but at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Both of them appear to be still in force. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think those 2 cover it for the OP. There only seems to be those 2 restrictions. AFAICT, the 1RR per week is only for the tea party movement not the entire post 1932 American politics space. But especially for the benefit of others, my read is there are several main places you probably should check out. If you start at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, it has arbcom and community imposed restrictions.

However it notes that:

Inactive accounts have been moved to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive.

That page confirms that it's for restrictions which are nominally still in force, but the editor has either been blocked or inactive for a long time. Editors should be move back to the main list when active but I would imagine this doesn't always happen especially for editors who simply went inactive.

Then if you go down, it notes that:

From January 2015, sanctions imposed by an administrator in accordance with an arbitration remedy (including discretionary sanctions) are recorded at the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. This includes the discretionary sanctions authorized for biographies of living persons.

However if you check out that page, it notes:

An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force.

Fortunately there is a search bar there to help you find any restrictions more than 5 years old.

Finally if you scroll down even more on the editing restrictions page, there is a section for final warnings and unblock conditions. This notes:

These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log.

This is a bit confusing since I don't think final warnings require an editor to be blocked first. But then again final warnings are a bit of an odd duck since they're not really a restriction or something that can be appealed. If they aren't logged there I guess they may be forgotten about over time. But you should check your block log for any unblock condition.

If you check these 4 places, I think you're fairly safe. But noting of course that if you're aware of a restriction, the community is not likely to take kindly to an editor ignoring it simply because it wasn't properly logged. By comparison, an editor who notes the mistake will probably get at least some minor brownie points.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR version, I think any restriction should be on one of the several pages Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log or in the individual year if more than 5 years old (use the search bar there to help you find them, for the OP [87]) and your block log ([88] for the OP but I can't provide a general link AFAIK). Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Drafts duplicating existing articles

Would an admin mind taking a look at Draft:Jewel of the Nile (album) and Draft:The Jewel of the Nile (1985 film)? Articles about these two subjects already exist as Jewel of the Nile and The Jewel of the Nile and the drafts just seem to have been created by an IP account to try and move the existing articles to new titles for the purpose of turning "Jewel of the Nile" into a DAB page; see Talk:Jewel of the Nile#I copied the pages exactly and added a disambiguation page and the page history for Jewel of the Nile for more details on that. I don't think a DAB page is really needed here per WP:ONEOTHER, but new drafts shouldn't be created to try and MOVE articles even if such a page is needed. These are drafts so I don't think WP:A10 applies, but I'm not sure if they need to go to WP:MFD or can be tagged per WP:G6 or WP:G14. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted from everyone who has the time

A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to go through all the pages now, but at some point Dr. Blofeld created a couple of thousand pages about districts of Russia. This was done in collaboration with the Wikiproject, and I was involved. There is no copyvio there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Dr. Blofeld whose assistance—in terms of background knowledge—in this area could be...forensic, to say the least. ——SN54129 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his assistance would definitely be appreciated. He is not needed now, as the current focus of the project is to get rid of the vast amounts of non-copyrightable material strewn about the CCI, but once that is all taken care of, his help in possibly identifying when the copying occurred would be extremely appreciated.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you think I'm a serial violator in the first place @Money emoji:. This is basically like mowing down a whole cornfield just to find a couple of needles... I guess you'll have to find out the hard way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm not going into this with the mindset we'll find much. In fact, this cleanup effort was created with the intention of removing the thousands of stubs that contain non-copyrightable prose from the listing, so the people who are in the know regarding copyright can figure out what to do with the remaining articles (likely to be under 300). As someone who primarily edits in the copyright field of wikipedia, I am aware that most of these stubs contain nothing actionable, and therefore they will not be deleted. Furthermore, I am not going to have your other articles presumptively deleted, because I would like to collaborate with you in figuring out the status of articles which contain sources not readily accessible to me, which there are not many of (1% of listed articles). I don't think you're a serial violator (If you were, wikipedia would have died), and I also don't care whether or not you or Fram are vindicated as a result of the project. I simply care about decreasing the monstrous backlog at CCI. I do not want our working relationship to be that of enemies, but rather friends, for the benefit of the entire project. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand and I'm not commenting in annoyance but as the issue is likely to be extremely minimal it just seems a little unnecessary, if you wanted to block out the short stubs why didn't you use a bot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the problem; a script to cull the listings was already run, and it removed about 60% of the content. Now the humans have to do the work.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The first days' results are very encouraging; at this rate the first phase of the project will only take 2-3 weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Special:Import

Hello! I have started an RfC over at VPP regarding adding commons as a wiki source to Special:Import. Feel free to comment over there! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Celia Homeford keeps undoing my edits to List of current pretenders and even undoing edits made by previous users before I started working on the page, all the information I add is verifiable but she keeps undoing the edits before I have a chance to provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisnallmarty (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to avoid this happening then cite your sources at the same time as adding content. Sources are not an afterthought. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you can source any of that material. Per WP:CIRCULAR, you can't source pages on wikipedia from other pages on wikipedia. You need independent, third-party reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You haven't notified Celia. As explained at the top of this page and in the page notice, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

There have been a few unblock requests sitting there for over three weeks that require a decision from an uninvolved admin. Thanks in advance. MER-C 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The ones I'm not involved in, I try to use Template:decline stale if nobody including me decided to act within two weeks. This may be useful if you are a reviewing admin and... can't decide one way or another, but don't want to let the unblock request remain open indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I managed one but the documentation desperately needs improving to tell newbies like me what to copy/paste with suitable editing. One problem I saw was that {{unblock}} shows text implying that Template:Accept reason here can be used but that page has never existed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In case it inspires anyone, here are the notes I made for my personal use:

Reviewing an unblock request:
    {{unblock|reason=XXX}}
Change above to one of following:
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline=REASON. ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
    {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|accept=REASON. ~~~~}}

I hope that's right! Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Note! If you click the [show] link in the "Administrator use only" section at the bottom of the unblock request, you get a set of options you can copy-and-paste to accept or decline the unblock request. If the unblock request is essentially free of content, just using the default decline, the one that looks like {{unblock reviewed|1=XXX|decline={{subst:decline reason here}} ~~~~}}, will paste in a default decline message. Or you can write your own message! --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category whitelist request

Hello! I would like "Category:Minecraft servers" to be whitelisted. I want to put this category under "Category:Minecraft", and add the articles 2b2t, Hypixel, and Mineplex to the category. I am also planning on creating an article called "Minecraft servers," which I've been working on in my sandbox for a few months, which will also be added to that category. (I will have to get that article name whitelisted as well) —  Melofors  TC  00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

By whitelisting you mean MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist? I don't understand why it's blacklisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out - the item was blacklisted globally at meta:Title blacklist. I've added an entry on the whitelist and modified the error message so that people know that the global blacklist can trigger it as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Melofors: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Was it actually necessary to whitelist it? The blacklist entry doesn't seem to be marked with "noedit", so I think an admin or pagemover could have just moved the mentioned sandbox page to that title and then it would be able to be edited normally. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a false positive case is better dealt with through one-time whitelisting rather than asking people to override it each time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nasty expletives need redaction

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

---

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

vandal IP has already been blocked. Please also redact their entire contribution history per WP:CRD #2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. As they are posting nasty expletives in Hindi language.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus for hiding the above, there is one more IP (same user) below,

• 106.67.106.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --DBigXray 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

106.67.3.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We have another IP with same edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus or any other admin. Please revdel the contributions.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

They are gone and the IP is blocked. Perhaps some kind of filter is warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The good folks at WP:EF may be able to set something up for you. I have always found them quite helpful. --Jayron32 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has blocked the last IP as a WP:LTA. So I would support an edit filter. Jo-Jo Eumerus are you taking this forward to get the filter ready? Also ping User:Zzuuzz--DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Expletives in Hindi in edit summaries & page content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category created by mistake

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

---

Excuse my distraction, I thought I was on Commons and by mistake created here the category Naturalized citizens by country. Would you please delete it? Thanks and my apologies again. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Partial Blocks PSA

Hello all. Being that the Partial Blocks feature is now deployed, be careful that you don't accidentally use it to create a block that does nothing. On the block interface, "Editing" and "Sitewide" must be checked, unless you intend to do a partial block. If you uncheck "Editing", or check "Partial" without entering any pages to be blocked, then you will have created a block that does not stop the user/IP from editing. You can see a list of all partial blocks, if you want to make sure that there are no "null blocks" or otherwise unintentional partial blocks. If "editing" is not listed in the "block parameters" column, then the block does not prevent editing. ST47 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no policy-based reason to issue a partial block right now. Is that correct? –xeno^talk 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That, I'm not clear on. The RfC was closed with a result that broadly allows partial blocks. That should be written into policy, but in the mean time, I wouldn't have a problem with someone issuing a partial block in a way that is consistent with that RfC. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What a great question! There was an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks) and I'm still not clear on if the result is that administrators must not, or may, use a partial block. @JJMC89: closed the RfC. I know I was on the side of not enabling this technical feature without a policy - but the majority were not. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see they wrote "Community consensus is not required to apply partial blocks. Administrators may apply partial blocks using their discretion, in line with the Wikipedia:Blocking policy". –xeno^talk 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I added two of the explicit RfC uses to the blocking policy. Further changes are needed though. Partial blocks may be used with admin discretion within the parameters of the blocking policy. I expect that a second RfC (if one is held) plus common and failed uses will inform future changes to policy. For those concerned about the lack of governing policy, I urge you to start a second RfC to discuss any changes that you want to see. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately the default is a "sitewide" block, so you'd have to change something on the block form to impose a partial block. It's annoying because now the block form is longer, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe that we have yet encountered the universe in which Bbb23 does partial blocks :D ——SN54129 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocks via Twinkle appear to proceed as before. Partial blocks don't appear to be an option when blocking via Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Amorymeltzer is on it, so it'll be there soon. You can use the {{subst:Uw-pblock}} in the meantime and use the |area= parameter to list pblock details and |email= if it is a email pblock. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can the template be reworded? Although no-one expects a template to have FA-worthy prose, You have been partially blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges is one of the worse sentences ever. "Partially blocked" implies the block itself is somehow incomplete, whereas, of course, they're wholly blocked from specific areas. Suggest something like: "For abuse of editing privileges, you have been temporarilly blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia", or somesuch. ——SN54129 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've implemented your suggestion. The long-term issue is, ofc the name of the feature, so not many ways to get around it. The current |area= parameter would also fit in nicely with your suggested sentence. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also if you want to hide the ability to partial block from Special:Block and keep things as before you can follow the steps at User:AntiCompositeNumber/Hiding partial blocks. I’m assuming twinkle will have a way to keep the classic block screen as well? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mostly I would suspect, the ideal way would be a radio button switch. @Amorymeltzer: has all the top-secret blueprints. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  I was more thinking like a button in twinkle preferences that would either enable/disable the partial block functionality, but these things are beyond me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  In all likelihood it will be a single little checkbox, off by default, that if checked will change the form. Nothing much will change from how it is now unless you opt for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ricky81682 unblocked

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ricky81682 unblocked

Turkey's Wikipedia ban lifted

I don't know if this has been reported elsewhere but see Wikipedia is back online in Turkey after two-year ban is overturned.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey_lifted.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's some excellent news. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they had about 16,000 new users create accounts yesterday, and people who haven't edited from years are back in their old accounts. This might be a good time to be nice to your favorite m:global sysop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See also the Wikimedia announcement Access to Wikipedia restored in Turkey after more than two and a half years.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

is a little backed up. If anyone would care to join me, I'll start at the bottom.-- Deepfriedokra 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, over 30 requests, current backlog is about 15 hours--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Harassment / antisemitic vandalism

Hi - I would appreciate some more experienced admin eyes on an issue I just noticed. I spotted some strange articles being created by GlowingFlowers, and when I turned up on their talk page I noticed the diff that was left there at 12:29 by IP 63.138.72.245 (I've revdelled it as purely disruptive). I checked the IP's other contribs, and found a bunch of racist/anti-semitic stuff at various articles - I think I've cleaned it all up now, and I've blocked the IP for 31 hours, but I wonder if a longer block would be appropriate under the circumstances, or whether anyone else notices anything I've missed. Thanks for any advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a Marriott Vacation Club (Ocean Pointe) IP, so even though I would have went with a longer block —reflexively, I go with no less than a week for these type of edits— to instill the pointe, that block duration is probably fine (unless there's substantially more disruption we've missed). El_C 13:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks - I'll leave there for now, happy for anyone to amend or extend as necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Google search linking to older versions of WP pages

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

---

I have been noticing over the past few days that, when logged out, google search links to older versions of articles, by several hours. For example, at 13.06 UTC now, google search is linking to the Emily Hale article (and edit history), from 5.53 UTC, over 7 hours ago. However, if I log in, google search links to the most recent version (and edit history) of the article. Is that a fault on our side – E.g. have we stopped giving google the update data in real-time? Britishfinance (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance This seems more suited for WP:VPT. –xeno^talk 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Xeno – will move it to there. Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Canadian open proxies

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

---

During the last week an anonymous user has been using open proxies from Canada to remove content from the page Maltese (dog) and to pretend to be another user in Talk:Maltese (dog). The IPs are the following:

• 142.167.63.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 74.15.115.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 108.172.129.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 104.159.54.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Luckily, an administrator has already blocked 2 of them, so just 2 more miss. I suggest to keep an eye on those pages because the anonymous is probably going to use more open proxies. --151.21.70.193 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The main article is semi-protected and the proxies are blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

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

---

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

Hi,

I would like to appeal my topic ban [89] that was sanctioned by @Bishonen:. It has almost been a year since I was banned from editing pages related to caste and social groups. Therefore I request that this ban be lifted so that I can once again edit such pages. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• How is your approach to editing such pages going to change, so that the issues which led to your topic ban will no longer happen? Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The primary reason for my ban has been mentioned as my disregard for sources. So I will abide by Wikipedia policy regarding WP:VERIFY while editing such pages in the future. Also, I will be more careful while leaving edit comments so that it is as per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence here. To their credit, Nittawinoda has both kept to their topic ban (unless I've missed something) and has also been editing diligently about other things since I placed it. However, looking at Nittawinoda's aggressiveness just before I placed the topic ban a year ago gives me pause; for instance this extremely bad-faith-assuming post in reply to a warning from me, and this typical caste-warrior comment. Nittawinoda, do you now understand that a) British Raj sources are not acceptable, b) tendentious caste promotion will not be tolerated on Wikipedia and c) you need to assume good faith of experienced and knowledgeable editors who try to advise you, such as User:Sitush? Unfortunately, Sitush hasn't edited since October; I'm pinging him in case he gets e-mail alerts for pings. I'll also ping a few admins who are knowledgeable in these subjects: @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, and SpacemanSpiff: Unfortunately Spiffy isn't around much either. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I understand that Colonial era sources are not reliable. Just to clear the air, I am not here to glorify or promote any caste. Also, I have been assuming good faith while interacting with other editors. To cite a few examples, since my ban, I have single handedly expanded the article Kulottunga I and helped promote it to GA status - check [90]. I have also engaged in meaningful discussions with other editors like @Kautilya3: to hash out differences and attain consensus when there is a conflict like for example the content regarding Pallava article check [91]. So I've been doing my best to abide by wiki policies since my ban. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to offer this user WP:ROPE, as I cannot find anything egregiously problematic in their recent history, but they still appear to have an antagonistic approach in some cases, so I would suggest that if the TBAN is lifted, a 1RR restriction is imposed with the same scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Responding to ping. Indeed, upon Abecedare's suggestion, I was involved with helping resolve a dispute between Nittawinoda and another editor at the Pallava dynasty page. It was quite a challenging dispute. Nittawinoda's conduct was cooperative and entirely above board. His use of sources still left a lot to be desired. But, as long as he engages with other editors and works collaboratively, there should be no problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note: We're sadly short-handed wrt Indian admins; I just realised Abecedare isn't around either. Nittawinoda, I'm inclined to extend WP:ROPE as recommended above. Vanamonde, if Nittawinoda should happen to be overly antagonistic going forward, and especially if they relapse into caste promotion, a 1RR restriction, or indeed the original topic ban, can be imposed as needed by any uninvolved admin. Castes and social groups are under community discretionary sanctions per WP:CASTE, so it's not like another AN hassle would be needed. But let's wait a bit for other opinions first.Bishonen | talk 12:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC).
• I say we should give them WP:ROPE, as long as they continue to improve I suspect we will not need to be back here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per ROPE. ∯WBG^converse 12:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Suppot with the caveat offered by Vanamonde (the 1RR restriction). Unfortunately, Sitush is not around and is the only one who really knows their way around the caste articles (I'm clueless) but if Vanamonde promises to keep an eye on them ... we should be good.--regentspark (comment) 17:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I believe @Winged Blades of Godric: (and me, to a limited extent) is aware of how to navigate through them, although personally I do not take much of an interest in the subject. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, don't look at me, I have no idea. We have pretty much all relied on Sitush, I guess. Did Vanamonde promise that, regentspark..? If they do, I will support their suggestion for 1RR. Not as a bribe, but simply because anybody who admins caste articles deserves all the help we can supply. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

  Oh dear. @Bishonen and RegentsPark: I'm comfortable with the source material to a limited extent, but I don't want to make promises because of some very substantial RL commitments in the next few months. I cannot promise I can watch over each of their contributions. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, of course not, Vanamonde; I, at least, didn't mean that. You still seem to be in better shape than any other currently active admin. So. We can't very well keep the user under a topic ban merely because we're short of admins competent in the area; that situation is not Nittawinoda's fault. Are we agreed on lifting the topic ban with a 1RR restriction for castes and social groups? Note, that would mean 1RR for the same area that the topic ban covered: caste and social group-related matters anywhere, not just caste articles, as per WP:TBAN. I could presumably decide this on my own, since I set the original T-ban on my own discretion, but I'd very much like to have consensus for whatever I do here. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Yes, let's go ahead with this. I've been reviewing Nittawinoda's edits and I think this will work out. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do my best to check in on them from time to time. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And we're talking about an indefinite 1RR restriction for edits related to caste and social groups, right? Or not? I'm for indefinite myself; it's not really onerous to be forbidden from edit warring. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Looks like it. OK, doing it. Bishonen | talk 09:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

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

Dark Emu

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

---

On 18 January I made edits to the article on Australian author Bruce Pascoe, who has been the subject of controversy following the publication of his book Dark Emu, and which the press has covered for months. (e.g. two articles of recent days: [92]; [93])

Conscious of WP:BLP, I was therefore cautious in my edits. The existing first sentence stated "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is an Aboriginal Australian writer". However, this is not proven, and according to press reports two leading koori organisations dispute his claim. What Pascoe himself states is that he *self-identifies* as part aboriginal. So I amended the text to read: "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is a writer of literary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays and children's literature who identifies as being Aboriginal Australian." Given one of the organisations has a database, and the other holds family records, until he agrees to a DNA test the claim must remain questioned. So I believe the wording, which mirrors his own language on the issue is fair and reasonable.

The 'Identity' section (currently reverted back as to how it appeared prior to my edits) covered no less than six paragraphs, with much repetitive and redundant material. The only reference it makes to the controversy is to the objections of a single aboriginal lawyer. I was able to edit the material down without losing its impact to three paragraphs, and also to add for balance: "However, the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council (which manages a database of people of Boonwurrung descent), and the Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania question Pascoe's ancestry claim." As an authoritative reference for this statement, I used the Sydney Morning Herald article linked above. In the section of the article on his book Dark Emu, which read like a publisher's release, and included no information that its claims have been questioned, I added: "The book's claims have been the subject of controversy, and have been challenged, including by scholar Peter O'Brien in Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu (Quadrant Press, 2019, ISBN 9780995368316); by the conservative magazine Quadrant;[18] and a multi-author website Dark Emu Exposed [www.dark-emu-exposed.org].

These cautious edits were made in good faith, and fall well-within WP:BLP published guidelines. They were quickly reverted by another editor with the statement "You need to gain consensus for these edits on the talk page." Since when did a carefully measured statement, that is supported by a source which is the leading newspaper of the largest city in a nation, even for BLPs, require prior approval? If so, Wikipedia editing would grind to a halt.

The Wikipedia article on the book Dark Emu also read like a media release, similarly containing almost no information that the book was the subject of controversy. I therefore added the same sentence to it. I also edited an existing sentence in the article which read: "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices." This is certainly not correct, as a reading of the months of press reports of the controversy would inform. Academics have also expressed reservations about the book's interpretation of primary sources, and there has been wider dispute that the thesis itself is flawed. Leaving this for others, I simply excised the inaccurate phrase "The main criticism of the book", so the revised sentence stated "Academics have disputed Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices."

My contribution was promptly reverted by Admin Nick-D (talk · contribs) with the edit statement:

"Quadrant is a WP:FRINGE publication. Not correct to imply that academics disapprove of the book. Both problematical per WP:BLP".

Firstly, Quadrant is the leading conservative publication of Australia, and respected academically as such. Secondly I was not even using it as a source, but merely informing that it was one of the media channels for the controversy. Thirdly, the statement "Not correct to imply that academics disapprove of the book" is false: some approve, some hold reservations, and some object. As an example, I had listed the scholarly work 'Bitter Harvest' that has been published by Quadrant, and also referenced a multi-author website that seeks to fact-check Pascoe's claims by quoting the original source material he used for the book. Again, all I sought to do was inform of the EXISTENCE of the controversy (which was not indicated by the existing text): doing so judiciously is certainly not (and I quote) "problematical per WP:BLP".

I therefore reverted it again, but also added The Australian newspaper for good measure in addition to Quadrant (for better or for worse the Murdoch press has particularly covered the issue). Nick-D then reverted again and posted on my Talk page:

"Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. They further added "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons."

Quite simply: false, deflective, and insulting. I requested on my Talk page Nick-D justify his revert in detail or apologise, but there has been silence. Very disappointing. Setting up a discussion on an article's Talk page for the usual exhausting, greased eel line of argumentation we all know and love is all fine and dandy, but when even an Admin in the first instance engages as I've outlined above, the thought is: why bother. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Issues around Bruce Pascoe have been brought to the BLP Noticeboard recently here (briefy) and here (longer thread). There has also been posting from the advocate behind the above-linked Dark Emu Exposed website, across different identities. The OP is not a new editor – there are two threads at user talk:ClearBreeze about edits relating to Pascoe, and the OP has also argued at RSN for rescinding the ban on the Daily Mail, which makes me wonder about the OP's judgement in relation to sourcing. Edited to add last sentence EdChem (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Heartening to see any assumption of goodwill dismissed. For the record: I have no association with the Dark Emu Exposed website, or with sockpuppetry, but thanks for the juvenile conspiracist fingerpointing. Whether the DM should be a Wiki source is irrelevant to the incident at hand. The last post of the second prior ANI case suggests the page should include "mentioning the dispute if properly framed and attributed". That's precisely what I did. And for the record: someone on that thread calling Quadrant "yellow journalism" is an hilarious opinion of Dave Spart proportions. Presumably The Sydney Morning Herald now is as well! ClearBreeze (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WTF is this at AN? Frankly unless you're asking us to block you, it doesn't really matter who you are or why you're on wikipedia. Your WP:BOLD edit was objected to. And it doesn't matter whether you think people should have objected to your edit. They did. So you do need to discuss on the article talk page. People object to edits where some editor felt there would be no objection all the time, it's part and parcel of editing here. Various related issues have been extensively discussed on the article talk page and BLPN, so there should really be no surprise about the objection anyway. Discussion on the article talk page (and other appropriate places) is also a key part of editing here, and if you aren't willing to do so, opening a pointless long thread at AN is going to achieve nothing. If you have objections about the characterisation of Quadrant at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source", then open a discussion at WP:RSN. Incidentally I disagree that your views on the Daily Mail are irrelevant. If yours views on what makes a source reliable seem to be far divorced from the communities, then we have greater reason to be concerned about your use of questionable/generally unreliable sources like Quadrant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Nice trolling. (You only needed to do it once: not on my Talk page as well.) 1. Quadrant is Australia's leading conservative opinion journal, to which leading conservative figures, including former Prime Ministers and academic luminaries have written for. To paint it as an 'unreliable source', rather than respectable is just juvenile nonsense peddled by those for whom any alternate opinion is something to be suppressed. Given your choice of puerile student language – ("WTF is this at AN? Frankly unless you're asking us to block you") – I appreciate your preferred mode of argument may reflect that of the religious-fascist state of Malaysia, where you appear to originally hail from, and that text which embraces differing opinions may be a confronting foreign concept for you. However, it is a cultural tradition here in the West. I warmly encourage you to acquaint yourself with it.

2. As I was at pains to point out, I did not even bother to use Quadrant as a source, although I could have. If you'd read what I'd written, you would have seen I simply stated that Quadrant, the book 'Bitter Harvest' published by Quadrant Press, and The Australian, were three of the channels where the controversy had been raised. The specific source I used was The Sydney Morning Herald. Got it now? Hopefully.

3. If a statement in an article is baldly factual and supported by an authoritative source, it is not good manners to revert it simply because you personally disagree with it. And certainly not for an Admin to do so! And for an Admin to support such a revert with IMHO what are – well I've already stated what I think of what they wrote – is particularly regrettable. An approach of mutual respect involves, like any civilised debate, either contributing an edit with an equally opposing fact that is supported by an authoritative source, and thereby provide a balancing view, or seek to discuss the edit with the individual who put the work into it.

4. The edits I made were fully within Wikipedia guidelines, and, as previously stated, reflected the suggestion made in the previous noticeboard case incident, which had either not been followed through on, or reverted as mine was! ClearBreeze (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor seems to have an axe to grind against this author and their book. Point 1 in the post above indicates that they're some kind of obnoxious jerk. I reverted their edit to Dark Emu as it used a notoriously bad source to criticise the author's work and added a false claim that academics disapproved of the work: both are problematic per WP:BLP given the author is a living person and this forms part of an agenda of editing. I'd note that there's currently a campaign targeting this author and their book being waged by the far-right in Australia, of which this editing seems part. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Extreme right racists in Australia are working hard to discredit Dark Emu and its author. (The book seemingly terrifies them.) They are using many nasty tools and tactics. And the word "many" is critical here. There really is a flood of offensive, immoral and offensive material being hurled at the book and author. That makes it difficult to refute each individual attack. There are just so many. But quantity doesn't make the attacks correct. This complaint at AN by pretty much a single issue editor is just another part of the campaign. It should be quickly dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: "This editor seems to have an axe to grind against this author and their book." No, but I do have an axe to grind elsewhere, viz: you write – "I reverted their edit to Dark Emu as it used a notoriously bad source to criticise the author's work and added a false claim that academics disapproved of the work". Firstly, the existing article text itself refers to academic criticism, including from Gammage. The passage "The main criticism of the book by academics" was there before I began. Secondly, as I outlined above, Quadrant is only considered "a notoriously bad source" by the 'Progressive Left'. Bringing in Social Justice Warrior 'Cancel Culture' to Wikipedia to ban sources you personally object to is utterly offensive to editorial balance and truth, and brings into question your own fitness to be an Administrator. (The egregious ban on the Daily Mail as a Wikipedia source is part and parcel of this mentality. How damaging it is to fact can be gauged by a single example: a landmark speech by Cecil Rhodes on imperialism was only covered by a journalist from the Mail – there because Lord Northcliffe could afford the resources. By way of contrast, The Guardian, both as excellent and as biased as it can be, wasn't nicknamed The Graunaid for its accuracy.) Thirdly, you write: "I'd note that there's currently a campaign targeting this author and their book being waged by the far-right in Australia". Another distortion. It's far from just the "far right". There are also reservations about the book way beyond that sector. Indeed, Gammage who makes some of the same claims as Pascoe, has been the subject of criticism by botanists, to name but one. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Quadrant, and one on Keith Windschuttle, it's current editor, and editor for eight years earlier this century. A look at both will give other editors a feel for the long term political position and attitude to Aboriginal people of both entities. To expect impartial comment there would a nonsensical position. Both are at the extremes of positions on such matters. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And your point is? No one is denying Quadrant is right wing, just as no one would deny, for example that The Guardian or New Statesman are left wing. Regrettably, public discussion of the book and its author has become politicised as part of the ongoing 'History Wars' over the interpretation of colonial and aboriginal history. (One line of argument is that since the 'aborigines as agriculturalists and careful land management custodians' theory came into recent being, even existing as a proud nomadic hunter-gather people who may have been existential opportunists like any such others, has devolved into being an historical thing of shame which must not be propounded at any cost.) Nevertheless, and unfortunately for the leftists here, including apparently an Administrator, editorial balance demands that BOTH sides be represented. ClearBreeze (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Quadrant has already been ruled out here as a reliable source for factual reporting. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That RfC is risible, AND untenable. It has a mere handful of contributors, and as one editor states: "This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS." Will there be ANY conservative publication that Wikipedia permits to be used as a source in a few years? The way things are going with its adoption of intolerant liberalism and deplatforming, I doubt it. So further eroding its own credibility as a reliable source. More to the point, as I stated upthread, I did not use Quadrant, or the book it published, as a quoted source in the edit. I used them to flag the existence of the controversy. But comprehension skills here are bedrock poor. ClearBreeze (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That final sentence is a perfect example of personal attacks on every other editor in the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an observational analysis. I've frustratingly needed to repeat basic points, either because of an inability of respondents to focus on the points made, or a wilful refusal to do so, and instead engage in deflection tactics. It's a common problem on Wikipedia, and why threads like this balloon out, and go round in circles with no effective resolution. Symptomatic of the greater world, every day Wikipedia becomes more intolerant of differing opinion, facts, and editorial balance. So perhaps we should close this now, because it's certainly going nowhere, and wasting everyone's time. I won't bother with the Dark Emu article and let it remain the half-truth it currently is. Perhaps others will seek to address it. ClearBreeze (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(EC) I have not read most of the follow ups, but I want to point out that the idea a source was not being used as an RS is clear nonsense. If there is no RS to establish a controversy, then there is no controversy. Otherwise I could point to Reddit, 4chan or my own personal website and say there was a controversy. So either the Quadrant is being used as an RS to establish there is a controversy. Or the content was being added without sources and should be removed. This is why I ignored that silly argument, and probably also why others ignored. Also I still don't understand why this is at AN. Either open a discussion in the appropriate places, or don't. AN is not intended for random complaints on the evils of the world, or wikipedia. It's intended for discussion of specific issues with require administrative attention. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion over your content dispute, then the only issue that may require administative attention is whether to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"I have not read most of the follow ups....It's intended for discussion of specific issues with require administrative attention." Yes, and clearly you didn't even bother to properly read my first post: if you had you might have grasped that it outlined that I believed, and still believe, that an Administrator had engaged in biased editing. That's the bloody incident. Got it? But I now most humbly understand that what he did is all hunky dory but means of a farcical RfC which casts, believe it or not, Quadrant as a suspect source! And even if that disgraceful RfC hadn't existed, the system for sanctioning him is broken anyway, as we can see here: [94] So we're done. But feel free to reopen any other closed discussion here without following procedure. Why not open all of them?! Because you're precious and magical. No, truly. ClearBreeze (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for User:Magherbin

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

---

Magherbin was blocked in April 2019 as a checkuser block as a result of this SPI report. They have made several unblock requests at their talk page, which has been largely ignored. At their request via the IRC unblock channel, I am copying their request here. They have admitted on their talk page to operating the following accounts:

• Magherbin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Betamhara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kikolio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lokiszm7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Do not let the size of that SPI archive fool you. This user was only checkuser-confirmed to the list of accounts above, and was found to be  Unlikely to the rest of that SPI archive. In fact, there appear to be at least six separate sockmasters who had SPI cases filed under that name. Again, there is no technical reason to believe that this user is Middayexpress. I have done a CheckUser just now, and there is no evidence of recent sockpuppetry either. I asked them to explain why they created sockpupped before, and why we can now trust them not to do so again, here is their response:

My intention was to improve the encyclopedia by garnering opinions from the wider community ex; using RFC's, third opinion etc; see [95], [96]. Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. After a dispute was resolved with an editor, [97] he/she immediately requested checkuser against me and I believe i'm probably the only user that is actively attempting to improve articles in this field hence why the user suspected I was abusing multiple accounts. I have realized that my block was due to abusing multiple accounts therefore I will keep all Wikipedia edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account. The reviewers must understand that I have no reason to use multiple accounts ever again. I am not here to vandalize any pages on the encyclopedia except to sincerely improve the articles, the contributions I have made so far is proof of that. I will give permission to have my account reviewed by admins regulalry to show my commitment.
— User:Magherbin

There are some earlier unblock requests on their talk page as well, which may have some more information. Since it has been more than six months since their block, should they be unblocked under the Standard Offer? For what it's worth, I would support an unblock, as they do not seem to have been continuing to sock, they seem to have reasonable intentions to improve the wiki if they are unblocked, and as per WP:ROPE. Pinging @Bbb23:, as the original blocking CU. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock under WP:SO. It's good that they have plans for areas where they want to contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock based off ST47's words and WP:ROPE. Though I'm not sure we'd want to create a parole system where users requesting unblocks had to allow unlimited CUs on their account, so best to turn that offer by the applicant down, I think, even if it were permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with an indefinite one-account restriction. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and the community will realise that there is no reason for the user to engage in sockpuppetry moving forward. As they had explained, they only made use of sockpuppetry to avoid being targeted based on username alone. Of course, if they do that again, or if there is any suspicion, they'll simply be reported and blocked indefinitely. I doubt anyone would willingly want to get indef-blocked after months of dedication to upholding this very block. They're not a sock spammer, and they are not an agenda pusher. As per Wikipedia:NOPUNISH, users may be blocked or unblocked only for the benefit of the community and not to simply punish the user for past deeds. In this case, there is little benefit gained by keeping the user blocked. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Abuse of powers

• Goodarz Irani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GaruyZerh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Managers, this lady or Mr. manager and her team. Here. They intend to annoy certain users and block them by creating a file. Does not allow user to delete created pages in less than 24 hours then delete it quickly. like this GaruyZerh. Goodarz Irani (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is the wrong venue for this sort of complaint (WP:ANI would be the correct one), as long as it's here I wanted to note that the extent of my interaction with this editor consists of proposing a single article for deletion for reasons that I expressed, followed by a note I left on their Talk page conveying concerns I have with articles they've been creating. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be some issues with User:Goodarz Irani's article creation. Kasa-Roud fails to meet GNG with only one source that is not available online, the article is largely incoherent, and only after digging in to some of the linked articles do I discover that it seems to be a fictional place. Jawira (Shahnameh) is also incoherent and also appears to be a fictional person written as fact. The user appears to be creating a large number of articles about characters or plot elements without establishing notability. It may require some more coordinated cleanup. ST47 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think User:Goodarz Irani is complaining that User:Largoplazo applied a PROD tag to the newly created article on GaruyZerh. Unclear why this thread is called 'Abuse of powers' since Largoplazo is not an admin and anyone may apply a PROD tag to an article EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User refuses to abide by community consensus on style issues and unsourced material

If you see User talk:Donteatpigs, you will find a long list of users complaining that he keeps on adding unsourced material and makes arbitrary changes to style issues (like the formatting of album article track listings). He's continuing to do this despite repeated warnings and the last time he responded to such a warning makes me think he doesn't actually care or comprehend how his edits are disruptive and wasteful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours.-- Deepfriedokra 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James creationism topic ban appeal

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

---

Appeal by user

As simple as that, I should not really have been banned in the first place. This is a comment I posted to the closing administrator in reaction to getting my topic ban 9 months ago:

1. I hadn't even been warned that I might be topic-banned, and so I wasn't even given a chance to prove that a ban might not be necessary. Once the topic ban proposal was posted on ANI, I immediately made it clear that I had changed my behaviour (see 3.) and won't be disruptive from then on.
2. The topic ban was proposed straight after my block had expired, and I had barely done any editing in the meantime. I had not violated any policy which warrants a block, such as WP:3RR, and the only edit-warring (2 non-BRD reverts) that did take place was a result of my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is: I had immediately admitted that I was wrong. Furthermore, while of course not a justification, these only reverted an edit that had absolutely no consensus at the time. Other than that, I showed signs that I had learnt from my block and had taken on advice given to me by other users (such as taking to the talk page before reinstating my edit and not assuming consensus even if I believe it is there ([98] – note how this is a reversion to WP:STATUSQUO and not to my preferred version).
3. I had demonstrated on numerous occasions that I was willing to listen to what others editors had to say, and I also demonstrated my desire to become a better editor. I accepted almost every advice that I was given since the ANI post. Here are some examples:

• "The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage" by user:Guettarda on WP:ANI, referring to the edits I made on Answers in Genesis. Since that comment, the only two edits I made on the page were adding a comma and a hyphen. I have also now gotten myself voluntarily blocked in order to disengage from edits on all pages.
• [99] Related, this advice by user:jps is to "take a breather from Wikipedia". This was the main reason for my self-requested block: I realised I was spending too much time on Wikipedia, while I had lots of real-life work to do.
• "...my point is about general approach, that making a clear statement on what you are willing to commit to is more effective than debating what you have said previously or how earlier comments should have been taken" by user:EdChem on my Talk Page, referring in part to this comment by Guy Macon. My reply was "I will try this approach as well" to EdChem, and my reply to Guy Macon included "I will not claim consensus ever again", but I have also adopted this approach in other comments.
• "ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior" and "And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it" by Guy Macon and jps, respectively on WP:ANI. My reply to the latter's comment included "I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case" and "That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea" (admitting my tu-quoque-based position was never a good idea). I hadn't resorted to tu quoque since.

I can provide numerous other examples (feel free to demand them from me) of me taking on the advice of others and acting on said advice, admitting my mistakes, and showing my intention to become a better editor, but I think that would render this already long comment Tl;DR. My argument here is not even that I wasn't even given a chance to redeem myself – it's that I wasn't given a chance to redeem myself, then dug that chance out for myself, and did my best to take it, and yet all my efforts were still ignored. Note how even if I was simply promising that I would stop without any evidence to back that up, the best approach would sometimes be to give me the benefit of the doubt as per WP:ROPE – let alone when there is also a fair amount of evidence for that promise being genuine. Please recall that bans and blocks "serve to protect the project from harm and reduce likely future problems" – NOT to punish users (WP:NOPUNISH).

1. (4.) Why topic-ban me? Every single one of the edits brought up at ANI was in relation to my edits on one single page, and these edits did not display any obvious POV relating to creationism. Wouldn't a WP:PBAN hence be more appropriate? Why creationism? This decision seems very arbitrary to me.

So most of my evidence that I had changed as an editor is just a continuation of the evidence that I provided 9 months ago.

For example, I haven't engaged in a single act of edit-warring since the topic ban (i.e. violated the BRD cycle, for example). One example of where I chose to give up my editing in an area where I was confident that I was correct because of a lack of consensus is the article scientific racism. Here is the discussion of my proposed edits, where it can be seen that I remained firm in my position. Nevertheless, after a few proposed compromises (1 and 2), I gave up and moved on to other topics. It's important to note also, before anyone else points out, that in this instance I was NOT arguing in favour of scientific racism (as the ungrounded belief that genetics are responsible for the difference in IQ across different ethnic groups would constitute), which is indeed WP:FRINGE; instead, I was arguing in favour of content that already exists and is well-sourced on other Wikipedia articles (for example, Race and intelligence), so WP:FRINGE shouldn't be relevant to the discussion, especially given that I am an opponent of the very topic that I was topic-banned on (creationism).

Also, despite the ban, I remained relatively active on Wikipedia and managed to edit successfully on other articles. Some examples are this edit and [100], which prove my dedication to improving Wikipedia as a whole and not just fixating on one topic (surprising that I even need to prove this, given the edits that led to my topic ban were some of the first creationism-related topics that I had ever made). Other edits can be seen through my contributions page; note that I did violate the topic ban regulation on a few occasions, but after I was reminded of that by jps, I thanked him and immediately stopped editing in inappropriate areas.

Hopefully, the community can evaluate my behaviour and eventually get the topic ban lifted. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

!Voting

• Oppose. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is genius. Concise and to the point. I love this. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Thank you for providing the links, JBL. Having looked into this, I feel that both sides have good points. However, I think James deserves a second chance, and has potential to provide a lot of effective contributions. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per I should not really have been banned in the first place, which suggests that nothing has been learned and the issues that led to the topic ban have not been accepted, let alone addressed. Guy (help!) 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. See my reasoning in the "comments and questions" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. Part of me wants to give him some WP:ROPE, but another part of me is concerned with the aggressive tone of his responses here. If this is how he acts at ANI, where he is supposedly on his best behavior and trying to convince everybody that the problems that led up to the topic ban will not recur, how will he act when he runs into another aggressive editor (there are plenty on both sides) on a creationism-related talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm on my "worst" behaviour here, because that's where I hear the highest number of stupid arguments and baseless accusations. And behaving "aggressively" on talk pages without making personal attacks doesn't seem to be a problem - ask Roxy (I'm not being sarcastic here - I genuinely don't think that's a problem if it turns out a net positive for Wikipedia as a project, which it counterintuitively is in at least Roxy's case). Additionally, you should know how I would react from the example I gave, which is that I would make my point and move on if it doesn't gain consensus. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 01:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• What you call "baseless accusations" aren't baseless at all. Stop and think. How many people have told you that your behavior is unacceptable so far? There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, by "baseless accusations" I meant remarks akin to "I can't let you edit on creationism-related articles yet because creationism is prone to a facile misreading". I might have interpreted that wrongly, but I think the implication is that I am not intelligent enough to understand the context of what is being said. I love your anecdote about the drunk driver (I think I'll save that one for future use), but remarks such as the one above have only been made my one editor. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because nothing has genuinely been learned here, and there are some disturbing claims being made even in the course of making this appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support for reasons described in the proposal, and because 'oppose' !votes are once again vague and unsubstantiated. Even if WP:AGF is not followed, and it is assumed that I wasn't genuine in any of the examples that I've provided, it is still clear that I wasn't problematic since the ban, so topic ban shouldn't be a solution as per WP:NOPUNISH. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, propose site ban People on here really don't seem to like my "AgGreSsIoN", but none of them seem to have any problems with my editing on creationism-related topics in particular (actually, any editing at all, but that doesn't really matter, because my politeness on AN/I is infinitely more important than my contribution to Wikipedia). Perhaps a site ban would be more appropriate? Perhaps this will protect Wikipedia from this deadly monster that is myself? This should surely put an end to all hostility that there is on Wikipedia, because no other editors are ever defensive over personal attacks on them. That is, all unsanctioned editors, because editors whose editing pattern involves edit-warring blended together with hostility, regardless of their contribution to Wikipedia, always get topic-banned or indef-blocked, as is perfectly demonstrated by the example of Roxy the dog. To conclude, I don't see why my ban should be restricted to creationism. With all above considered, I should be site-banned asap. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose In this very conversation, this editor continues to display the same tendentious and argumentative behavior that led to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Protip: when appealing sanctions, do not troll oppose !voters. – Levivich 02:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, marriage specialist ;) (Get it? Because Tolstoy's marriage was horrible? And your name starts with Lev? Okay, this was pretty bad. I tried.) ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - As others have noted, the editor doesn't seem to get why they were topic-banned and that their behavior has to change. Intractible polemics in this thread make this an easy call. Jusdafax (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The behavior here alone justifies why the topic ban should stay. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Not !Voting, but I doubt this appeal will succeed. I have posted some advice for OJ on a future appeal, which I hope he will consider. I can see the logic in his position that he changed before the ban was imposed so that it wasn't necessary, but believe that pointing to recent actions proving it isn't needed now is more persuasive an approach. In the present appeal, his discussion with jps below is much more concerning that the unwise structure of the appeal. Jps was trying to help and raising a legitimate point and the defensive response does not portray an ability to work cooperatively and productively in a contentious topic area. The site ban proposal above raises questions of maturity and judgement. OJ, please, consider withdrawing this appeal and also please act on Mandruss' point below about your signature and the accessibility issue. EdChem (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the appeal amounts to saying that the topic ban should never have been imposed in the first place and rehashing arguments made against the topic ban when it was imposed. This does not come across well. In order to have the ban lifted the OP needs to convince people that (a) s/he understands why the ban was imposed in the first place, and (b) that it won't happen again. Dealing with disruptive editors is a massive negative for people who are not disruptive, and those are the people we want to stick around here. This is particularly true with articles on fringe theories. Hut 8.5 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, someone who actually bothered to evaluate the situation! I cannot believe my eyes. Well, I think this alone warrants a reply. I understand why the topic ban was proposed, even though I disagree that it should have been imposed. The topic ban was proposed because of 1) my failure to understand what a self-revert is and 2) my recent history of blocks, tendentiousness, and edit-warring. However, I understood these issues soon after the topic ban was proposed and have managed to act upon the issues while the discussion was still ongoing. I was not, however, given the benefit of the doubt, even if evidence was on my side, and was subsequently topic-banned. Needless to say, large amounts of evidence that my disruptive behaviour would not repeat existed even before the topic ban was formally imposed. These included me taking on the advice of others and systematically stopping at 1RR. However, evidence became even more extensive after the topic ban, whereby I had not engaged in a single act of edit-warring for 9 months. I gave examples where I moved on immediately after my ideas did not gain consensus, even if I was still convinced that my ideas were right. I understand that this comment won't actually change anything, as the opposing consensus here is overwhelming, but I just thought your !vote warranted a reply. Using the opportunity, do you think it will be appropriate to appeal again after this appeal is denied, except I will do it properly this time? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments and questions

Question: When was your topic ban implemented? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like the relevant discussions are here and here. --JBL (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for supplying this information. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Question:

1. Why do you want to edit creationism-related pages?
2. I get that you are convinced you were railroaded in the sanction processes. You aren't the first and will not be the last person to feel so victimized (I myself have felt this way and sympathize with the feeling). On the other hand, using this as a basis for an appeal essentially never works. Can you identify the aspects of your own behaviors that led to the topic ban, and can you show any progress you have made on wiki in changing those behaviors or can you explain how you will conduct yourself differently to avoid this kind of problem in the future?

jps (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it is my opinion that I have already described in the original post both the behaviourial patterns which I believe led to my block and the improvements that have since taken place. For the most part, I believe it was 1) me not being careful enough with the policies, like 3RR, and 2) me not being careful enough while the idea of a topic ban was being discussed. Another important lesson that I learnt from the topic ban is "when in doubt, just refrain". For example, most of the arguments for a topic ban (and the original proposal) were made as a result of two of my edits which I believed to be self-reverts; however, they weren't, and I had to pay the price for that. Therefore, since the topic ban was implemented, I didn't engage in any activity that wasn't unanimously uncontroversial, an example of which I provided in the op. Additionally, I provided numerous examples of me taking on advice from other editors (which I still follow to this day), which clearly shows the progress that I have made since the topic ban proposal.

As to why I want to edit creationism-related pages, there is not really a big reason why I want to edit creationism-related pages specifically, but it's just that I tend to edit articles across all subjects, and sometimes articles on the topic of creationism or religion randomly pop up within my editing sphere. For example, I recently experienced a spike of interest in Jewish tradition, culture, and history, given that I myself am Jewish (only ethnically and perhaps culturally; religion-wise, I'm an atheist). Naturally, my research involved reading Wikipedia articles, some of which contained grammatical or factual mistakes, for example. I always strive to make Wikipedia as good and accurate as it can possibly, and the thought that other people might visit an article and get incorrect information out of it really worries me, as when they realise that it's incorrect, they are likely to then distrust Wikipedia completely, which is a huge loss (I actually describe this concern on my user page). Therefore, I really want to be able to edit all articles, without silly restrictions that are of no benefit to really anyone in particular - neither Wikipedia, nor Wikipedia readers, nor me (okay, maybe Roxy may benefit). As I have already demonstrated, I have generated minimal trouble since my ban, so I don't see what the harm will be in lifting my ban on creationism. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your motivations for wanting to edit creationism are the same as editing Wikipedia, which seems reasonable to me, but I worry that you may be a bit too attached to your own predilections for what constitutes "incorrect information". For example, one of the things you insisted upon was the idea that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis was an encyclopedic perspective. You are also insisting that a description very similar to that of a race realist position on intelligence tests and race is one that is mainstream. These sorts of positions smack a bit more of WP:ADVOCACY as opposed to the ideal which is following WP:RS even when you disagree with the sources (as you seem to in the two instances I outline). Your rejoinder seems to be that you are willing to accept a consensus that is opposed to your understanding of what is correct and, even, your interpretation of WP:PAG. My concern is that this kind of attitude can lend itself to a kind of tiresome tendentiousness even when it doesn't result in edit warring. This is especially concerning to me since you describe your own attitude toward editing as being intense and peripatetic. One thing I didn't like about our encounter was what a time sink it was. I think the direction of "when in doubt, just refrain" is a good one to point towards, but I think there is even more WP:DROPTHESTICK you can do in this regard. I speak from experience here as someone who sometimes has a hard time doing this (we, none of us, are perfect!), but I would like to see a little more introspection in this regard before I would be comfortable seeing you very active on creationism pages. I guess the question is, will we regret giving you WP:ROPE? Will we end up back at WP:ANI, WP:AE, or worse in short order? jps (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, "incorrect information" to me is something that is refuted by WP:RS. You see, you have your own opinions; I have mine. You may think that the statement that race and intelligence are connected constitutes scientific racism; I believe that it is the WP:RS consensus, a consensus which is in fact thoroughly described in another Wikipedia article, and is supported by at least 7 independent reliable sources which I had previously linked. You may believe that the Bible was written entirely metaphorically; I believe that at least of its contents were based on ancient Babylonian science (again a statement supported by numerous reliable sources) and were indeed intended to be taken literally, although of course within a larger metaphorical, story-telling context. None of these opinions by themselves make either me or you a problematic editor. Or, if they do, you have just as much of a potential for tendentiousness as me, or any other editor for that matter, as we all have our opinions and interpretations of reliable sources, all of which differ. Except my "tendentiousness" will probably harm Wikipedia less than other editors, because I already made it the basis of my approach not to edit-war. And I certainly think that this approach is more efficient than just "dropping the stick" and refraining from even discussion; in the vast majority of cases where I actually had the time to make the arguments, I eventually had my way (my contributions to the AiG page included). Once again, you are absolutely free to !vote in whichever way you find the most appropriate, but, if I were to weigh in, I'd say that simply having different opinions or approaches to editing by itself isn't a strong enough justification to !vote negatively. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So, here is the problem. I think in your defensiveness you have completely missed my critique of your approaches which is not whether you believe (a) or (b) but whether you can evaluate what the WP:MAINSTREAM academic position is about (a) or (b). My concern is that you cannot write for the enemy when you become convinced something is true, and this is reflected in your mischaracterization of my argument. The larger problem for me is that in a topic as controversial as creationism, there are some things which are surprisingly not apparent to a facile reading. Even using a term like "ancient Babylonian science" needs to be couched since the sources do not indicate there is such a thing as "ancient Babylonian science". This is a problem of rhetoric and, as such, sometimes does not matter on the article page itself. But if it does come down to it, I think that you are too tied to having your way in these regards and do not see that your scholarship itself is suspect. There are people at Wikipedia who hold to peculiar positions similar to yours, but they are okay with the fact that Wikipedia is skewed against their approach. I'm not getting the impression that this is you from our current conversation. jps (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. If you want to believe that all views which oppose yours are by default necessarily not WP:MAINSTREAM, you are free to do that. If you want to believe that I'm someone who holds WP:FRINGE opinions because I'm too narrow-minded or too firm in my opinion that I'm not open to other options, and too dumb to evaluate these issues in a manner that is not "facile", you're free to believe that, too. However, bear in mind that the very topic ban that we are discussing is one that I earned by writing for the enemy, regarding a topic that I have probably the firmest opinion on out of all topics (I am a strongly convinced atheist). Bear in mind also that I have provided several examples in op where I admitted to being wrong even in cases where it might have seemed that I was being firm and inflexible. In truth, I will tell you that I know my weaknesses very well (anyone who knows me irl will confirm this), and being too inflexible is far, far from being one of my weaknesses. Defensiveness? Perhaps, but only if I'm being defensive over something that I have good evidence of being right about, as in this case. And I will also tell you that barely hold any "peculiar positions" whatsoever. If you're hinting at my position on race and intelligence, that's an opinion that I had formed soon after reading the sources provided in the article; I did not have a position on the topic prior. And I am more than willing to change my opinion if someone can provide any reliable sources whatsoever that definitively rule out any correlation between intelligence and various ethnic groups; in this case, though, almost all articles on intelligence will have to be completely rewritten. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to understand my point and instead are seeing an attack on your person where instead I am trying to offer a critique of your approach. Defensiveness is exactly the problem, and as it seems to be your go-to in discussions like this and ones that are bound to occur in the talkpages of creationism, I really wish you would try to address this. I was not "hinting" at any position you have taken. I am simply saying that your scholarship is peculiar, but that is not a problem at Wikipedia unless the person who does that cannot take this kind of critique. It is not a problem for you to disagree with such an assessment, but if you cannot try to understand why someone might see this in your approach and if you cannot formulate a response that is not knee-jerk, I don't see this going well. jps (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm totally in the blue as to what you're saying, I think I understood your point the first time. As per your previous comment, it seems like your point was that I couldn't evaluate what is mainstream and what is not; to which I replied "we all have our opinions as to what constitutes as mainstream; my valuation, in this instance, differs from yours, but, in my opinion, that isn't reason enough for you to !vote 'oppose', although you are free to !vote whichever way you please". You have also criticised my scholarship as peculiar, by which I think you mean not mainstream. However, this links directly to the point that I just made. Of course I understand why you would think that - because not all people have the same opinions, as I have explained - but, in my opinion, this by itself does not necessarily render my scholarship peculiar. For my scholarship to really be "peculiar" - or, in more rigorous terms, fringe - it needs to lack evidence from reliable sources, which it doesn't almost by definition, as my opinion on almost all topics defaults to the opinion which is best supported by available evidence. Once again, my valuation of "what is supported by available evidence" may not always be correct, but my approach - "scholarship" is pretty standard and mainstream.

And, as to defensiveness, consider this: not only have I already conceded that I am pretty defensive by myself, and a Wikipedia ban will not change this, but I don't even think it's a bad quality for a Wikipedia editor to have. On the contrary, there have been many occasions where, through stubbornness and "defensiveness", I have been able to get my way and actually improve the article (the AiG page is one example). Now, it seems like you disagree, but that's fine: as I said, our opinions will differ, but I don't think that really warrants a topic ban. Additionally, you need to understand my position as well. From my position, the situation looks something like this:

• You are accusing me of holding fringe views and not willing to change my mind about them, which is already pretty offensive to me, because I my approach is pretty much the opposite: align my position with that of the scholarly community, but always be able to change it if it is shown that I have misinterpreted this position.
• You are then accusing me of not being able to edit on behalf of the other party's point of view in a discussion of a topic ban that I earned by doing exactly that.
• You are additionally subtly implying that all of the above is partly the result of a lack of competence to read in a "non-facile" manner.
• And you are using all of this to support a topic ban which should not in a million years have been imposed.

Tell me you would not get at least a little bit defensive in this situation. Okay, I doubt you will be convinced by any of this, but that's fine. It doesn't seem like consensus is going my way, anyway. I am just genuinely confused as to why you'd want me to stay away from creationism-related articles specifically, or from any articles for that matter. Even if you believe that I'm an incompetent, narrow-minded, insufferable fringe-pov pusher, how would that be a problem if I stop at the first revert of my edits? And why does it have to be creationism-related articles of all topics? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I think we should migrate everything past the od down to my talk page (or yours). I doubt anyone apart from us will actually read it, and it's already starting to look like a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
For context, I am going to copy what I wrote at 22:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) at ANI:

Oldstone James has been told -- repeatedly -- what he should do when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors (stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change). He has been told this by a wide variety of editors. He has been told this gently and respectfully. He has been told this aggressively and forcefully. He has been told this in the form of a block by an administrator. He has been told this by an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block and denied his appeal. I question whether any mentoring will be acceptable to him. I think that the moment the mentor tells him to stop edit warring and seek consensus he will instantly add the mentor to the list of inferior beings who he will not listen to because it is all their fault. I also question whether, given his present attitude, he has the ability to contribute constructively on any page related to creationism. I have not yet concluded that he cannot contribute constructively on other topics, which is why I am asking for a topic ban and not for another block. This may be one of those cases where someone is topic banned, learns how to get along with other editors on articles where his feelings are not quite so strong, gets the topic ban lifted after six months, and goes on to make real improvements to the article that he formerly edit warred over.

I now see what appears to be a completely different attitude from what I described last April. Based upon this, Unless Oldstone James indicates that he disagrees with my advice (when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors he should refrain from edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change) I am strongly inclined to lift the topic ban per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Changed my mind. I am seeing exactly the same attitude from what I described last April. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for the unwarranted dig that I threw at you in the previous comment. Thanks for having some objectivity and common sense. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: In response to Guy's !vote: not quite. I understand exactly what led to the proposal of a topic ban. However, I had acted upon these issues as the proposal was being discussed and, in my opinion, had more than enough evidence of that by the end of the discussion for a topic ban not to be warranted. However, even that's not really relevant. If you believe that my comment proves that I had not learnt anything, you should be able to find a reflection of that in my actions. However, if you look at my actions, you'll find that I had not been problematic since the imposal of the ban. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Notifying editors who were involved in the original topic ban proposal: Nil Einne Bishonen Dumuzid Guettarda Johnuniq Epiphyllumlover Samsara Nick Thorne EdChem The Duke 1990'sguy The Anome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
Hello. Would this be a good time to mention that your signature is extremely difficult to read, violating the WP:SIGAPP policy? The contrast values for your white-on-green and grey-on-green are 1.65 and 2.392 respectively, both well below the recommended minimum of 4.5. This is an accessibility issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment:
So, I was involved in a minor way back when this happened. The user and I had a fair few interactions, generally from differing positions, but, I thought, mostly civil and positive. I expected to come here and be fully supportive of this appeal. However, as others have said, the pugilism on display here gives me pause. I originally thought that the topic ban was a bit heavy-handed, but I certainly understood (and understand) it. I would urge Oldstone James (as I ever do) that reasonable minds can differ, and to proceed from that premise. A happy weekend to all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question - Isn't this edit (and this comment) a violation of the current topic ban? I was looking at the discussion here and OJ's contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• It seems they plain forgot, which brought about this very appeal. El_C 06:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm skeptical that someone who adhered to a topic ban for 8 months suddenly forgot. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Suggest expanding topic ban to all Fringe content

It seems that this user has now taken it upon himself to start inserting fringe content while claiming consensus for his wording in spite of considerable disagreement on the talkpage of Talk:Race and intelligence. This comes after selectively and aggressively pinging myself and another user on the talkpage acting like a disciplinarian about Wikipedia rules: [101].

This comes in spite of me trying to reason with him about the problems with his approach on his talkpage. The message is not getting through.

Given the problems above and now that he seems to be branching out, I think he should be removed from controversial content on Wikipedia, at least as it pertains to that covered by WP:FRINGE.

Other diffs of interest: claiming that the entire R&I article is pseudoscientific, playing the victim in reference to another dispute over Fringe material, deleting my comments from the talkpage, resurrecting months-old threads to try to claim consensus and attacking other users at the same time

What say ye?

jps (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: my pings were not intended to be aggressive and were instead simply notifying the users trying to get their attention. I don't know how it can appear otherwise. Also, note that I did not claim consensus, but simply that it appears this way to me, and the implication was that it was free to be reverted. If you look at my editing history throughout the past year, you will find that I haven't violated WP:BRD even once, so I don't think there was really any danger. Finally, take a note of the proposing user; this is the same user that has starting edit-warring without consensus on the same page (1, 2). And feel free to take a look at the linked discussion, where it's clear that I was looking to improve and understand, but my criticisms of the user seem to have put him off. I think jps is just being resentful over these comments, and in my opinion we should both understand that either opinions differ and move on without any spite, as I have pointed out in this comment. Honestly, jps, I understand your frustration, but proposing an extension to the topic ban is just a childish way to react to it. I've been guilty of this childish behaviour before myself, but we should both drop it. Let's just move on from this conflict as if nothing happened and keep improving Wikipedia together. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: in the first diff, I was being sarcastic. What I implied was that the article on race and intelligence was correct, and that the interlocutor was essentially arguing with the article instead of myself. Feel free to interpret the second diff however you want; I am still of the opinion that I expressed in that diff. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sarcastic"... Okay, let's take a look at that diff, which was a response to my repeated request that Oldstone James stop pinging me. Nothing in this user's behavior here or elsewhere that I have seen suggests a willingness to admit anything of substance. Just as disconcertingly, I don't see any awareness that his interpretation of complicated issues could be validly disputed. In this comment he's presenting his approach, and his sarcasm, as perfectly appropriate, while anyone else's attempt to challenge him is "childish", while "silly" is a personal attack when it's convenient. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not presenting my behaviour as appropriate. I'm just correcting jps' interpretation of my edits. Also, I never ever considered sarcasm a personal attack; don't know where you got that from. For your information, jps has been challenging me throughout the entire conversation that he linked, and I civilly accepted it. What I call "childish" is not his attempt to challenge me but his reaction to my attempts to challenge me, which he called "nauseous", and after which he wrote up this proposal here. If you think that I'm willing to admit anything of substance, you might want to take a look at the convo linked by jps in the proposal. I admit to being unnecessarily defensive, to having made errors in evaluation of consensus, among other things. Even here, I admit to being guilty of childish behaviour myself. But you are entitled to your own opinions of myself. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A further heads-up, editing your comment after someone else has seen it is not considered appropriate. But, to respond to the added diffs: the first one is simply an edit conflict. In the second, I do not actually attack anyone. Come on, jps, that's just plain dishonesty. There are other ways of resolving the issue than by flat-out lying. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty ballsy to admonish another editor about following talkpage protocol when one of the diffs he presented is of you deleting his talkpage comments. Grandpallama (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I already explained, it was a conflict of edits. How could I have possibly prevented this? Also, speaking of "pretty ballsy", how do you find the fact that jps is accusing me of claiming consensus right after starting an edit-war on exactly the same article without any consensus? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If it was a conflict of edits, I have to admit to being appalled that you resolved it by deleting my contribution. If there is an edit conflict, you get the chance to resolve it, and the idea is to resolve it by not removing other's work. If you don't know how to do that, you really shouldn't be editing, especially not in areas where getting this kind of thing right can mean the difference between conflict resolution and conflict escalation. As for your indignation over being called out for promoting fringe theories that support racism, I guess I should thank you for bringing to my attention some problems that I had to post to FTN about. We'll get things sorted eventually. But you aren't helping as a matter of your contributions. I am afraid you simply think of yourself as unimpeachable when it comes to these matters and I fear this is just going to end up with you banned either sooner or later. You simply are not yet mature enough to take on board the criticism that you need to take on to be a good editor in fringe pages. jps (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't resolve it in this way. I literally clicked "publish changes" and the page didn't even notify me that there was any conflict. I think this happens sometimes when the internet is really slow. I don't know, what can I say. All I can I do right now is apologise, but, really, I surely didn't intend to revert your comment. I didn't even know that this comment existed. Anyway... once again, you are invoking the fallacy of assuming that, if our opinions differ, that necessarily means that my opinion is wrong. The idea that "I'm not helping" with my contributions is your opinion, and it's not clear whether it's right or not. That shouldn't be a reason to justify an extension to my topic ban. And, as to the latter sentences, I don't even know what to say... I can't even recall how many times I have told you that I believe that my valuation of a situation, even if I believe to be objective, is always prone to error. Furthermore, I even gave you examples of where I admitted that my valuation of a situation was incorrect. I also proposed that you give me concrete examples of where you think I believe my analysis is unimpeachable so that I can correct my views and my approach. However, it seems like you just refuse to listen. Either that, or you, ironically, are not able to admit that your assessment of myself was wrong. You know, I really don't want to argue about this anymore. I'm literally repeating myself over and over and over again, but nothing is getting through to you. This is futile. Also, the comment about maturity... a very mature "no u" response (forgive my sarcasm) to my comments about childish behaviour on your part... ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Folks, there is a bug in the software that's been there for a long time, and it leads to an occasional edit conflict not being flagged, with one edit being overwritten by a newer one and lost. It's not the fault of the second editor when this happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is exactly what happened. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 13:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: It also doesn't require an edit conflict. The bug sometimes reverses an edit that occurred hours earlier. Not exactly conducive to peace in already-heated situations, but apparently the developers are helpless because they can't reproduce it at will. While entirely theoretical, the bug could also provide plausible-deniability cover for intentional reversals, and I've no doubt there are editors who are not above that – we've all seen worse. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, it's nastier than I thought then. And yes, I used to do software dev, and the bugs that only happen rarely, can't be reproduced, and give no clue as to the specific circumstances can be real pigs to track down. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that either, maybe it explains what happened here [102]. But anyway yes, especially with more run of the mill stuff where an editor makes a change and it reverses the most recent edit/s, it's best to just assume it's a hidden edit conflict. As Mandruss said, I'm sure there are some people who abuse this, but since it's impossible to prove and many of us know with experience it can happen you can't assume malice.

As for the dispute itself, the only thing I have to say is I'm not sure it was wise for OldStone James to change their mind and return to the subject area after they'd just given it as "One example of where I chose to give up my editing in an area where I was confident that I was correct because of a lack of consensus". Maybe they're trying to prove they can edit successfully in contentious areas and I appreciate jps engaged them in discussion about their editing in the area and OldStone James seems to have started off discussing someone else's proposal. But frankly it risks coming across as a case of an editor being on their best behaviour before an appeal but once the failed, not bothering.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I see why it might come across this way, but the only thing that caused me to come back to the subject area was the fact that a local consensus had formed around an idea similar to the one that I was proposing. I gave this idea as an example of where it failed to gain consensus and I consequently moved on. However, once consensus was growing, I don't see why it wouldn't be wise for me to strengthen this consensus. Tell me if my reasoning is flawed.

Also, I do appreciate that jps initially tried to discuss our collaboration efforts so that we could edit more efficiently. However, his aggressive and condescending approach was a bit hard to cope with even initially, and eventually after the first bit of constructive criticism that I laid out for him, he called me "nauseous" and incompetent and headed here, as well as to the race and intelligence article, where he stating edit-waring without consensus. Actually, you can see his self-righteousness right here on this proposal, where he blames me for calling him out (i.e. "aggressively pinging and acting like a disciplinarian") and not himself for edit-warring on a contentious topic. I think I'm not the only with behaviourial issues here; jps's own behaviour might be something to look into. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 13:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well jps's patience was obviously strained a bit here (that also sounds like a teacher who's had it, I think he actually is a teacher). —PaleoNeonate – 20:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And here, and [103], and also here. And all of this why? Because of my constructive criticism (which wasn't even meant to be a criticism so much as an attempt to understand the root of our common problems). I think it's a persistent problem, which I actually identified last year as well, although it wasn't so obvious at that time. But all of this would be fine if it wasn't followed by edit wars and baseless ban extension proposals. Banning him or blocking him is not a solution, but someone needs to step in and clear the situation up for him. I'm guilty of unacceptable behaviour, undoubtedly, but I'm not the only one, and someone needs to make this clear to him. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ambivalent - While reading all of Oldstone's text here I'm often confused about what is sarcasm, joke, remorse, resentment or whatnot. I've checked his recent editing history and there may be lack of judgment at the race and intelligence article, but also some constructive editing elsewhere. I'm not sure when/if any friction occurs at any of other non-fringe articles, if similar drama will result (in which case topic bans will not help but maybe something like 1RR, or ultimately a block could). Is the problem needing to be contrarian? Why was the push for fringe creationist sources persisting despite knowing that policies called for independent scholarly sources instead? It's possible that I stretch WP:AGF a bit, but am personally inclined to only support such a wide topic ban "next time", hoping that maybe it won't be necessary... But I'd also like to encourage Oldstone James to try to be more attentive to what others are saying, in general. If someone eventually offers to mentor, would their advice really serve (I see that some doubt that)? —PaleoNeonate – 20:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're a bit confused about my motives and the situation in general. I'll address some of your points:

• Sarcasm/joke/remorse/resentment - I think everything (or almost everything) that I've written after my appeal case was closed was none of these, unless otherwise stated.
• Lack of judgement - would you care to explain exactly what this lack of judgement manifests as, ideally providing some examples? I've tried to stick to what reliable sources are saying and stay on topic. But please do tell me if I got it wrong somewhere. In my personal opinion, there are other editors on the same article who fail to adhere to this procedure, but perhaps we all think that about each other because the topic is contentious.
• 1RR and contrarianness - 9 months ago, I have voluntarily imposed a 1RR restriction on my edits and haven't violated it since, so I think this restriction would be superfluous. Conflict that wasn't immediately resolved has only really arisen on one occasion, but was with the same user that I had problems with in the past, and even that eventually got resolved; my interactions with everyone else, even if we didn't initially agree, were conflict-free.
• Fringe POV pushing - here is the big misunderstanding, I believe. Recall that I'm not a creationist at all - on the contrary, I'm a convinced atheist. I didn't push any dubious sources - as a matter of fact, I didn't push any sources at all. I simply wasn't happy with the tone of the article, which felt to me at the time like an angry rant more than an accurate and representative description of AiG's core beliefs. I actually lay out, somewhat bitterly, the exact motives for my editing on my user page. However, recall that it was eventually a variation of my proposal that eventually managed to gain consensus (or, if I'm not advised to say that, my version stuck and is still there in the article). Similarly, on the topic of race and intelligence, in my opinion, I am not pushing any fringe views, and more editors than not seem to agree with me on this (it is also the scholarly consensus as per a recent comprehensive survey of psychologists, but I'll leave this discussion for the R&I talk page). If you want to know exactly what I am arguing for there, you may ask me here or on my talk page.
• Finally, I am super-attentive of what others are saying. I am all ears when anyone wants to give me a genuine piece of advice, as I assumed was the case with jps' discussion. I listened to their arguments carefully, agreeing with some of them (e.g. admitting to being guilty of WP:JURY and not making myself clear enough in this diff) and, in cases where I didn't understand their argument, asking to provide some concrete examples so that I could understand the issue better (as in this diff). However, jps refused to give me the examples that I asked him for, so I still don't understand what his issue with me is. I'm not saying that he is wrong that this issue exists (in fact, I openly admitted that it's likely that I have this issue in this last diff) - I just didn't understand the issue. Or are you referring to something else? If so, could please provide an example of where I was not being attentive to others' opinions? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The above tome reads like a massive WP:IDHT monologue. Oldstone seems unable to accept that there might be any validity in criticism of their behaviour. Despite being super-attentive of what others are saying they manage to nevertheless completely fail to grasp what others are saying to them. For my money an expansion of the topic ban is the minimum appropriate action, consequently I spoort the expansion.. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll quote part of my comment again, which you seem to have missed: "I listened to their arguments carefully, agreeing with some of them (e.g. admitting to being guilty of WP:JURY and not making myself clear enough in this diff) and, in cases where I didn't understand their argument, asking to provide some concrete examples so that I could understand the issue better (as in this diff). However, jps refused to give me the examples that I asked him for, so I still don't understand what his issue with me is. I'm not saying that he is wrong that this issue exists (in fact, I openly admitted that it's likely that I have this issue in this last diff) - I just didn't understand the issue".

Also, fyi, WP:IDHT refers to situations where editors continue to push a proposal despite that proposal failing to gain consensus. To give you an example, over the course of my editing of the AiG article, there was a period of time between EdChem's comment and a rejection of the previous variation of my proposal where I had insisted on getting my proposal through despite the consensus being against it. That would qualify as a case of WP:IDHT. Actually, you know that, because it was you who first introduced me to this policy... and, guess what, I listened to you, admitted my mistake (at least I do now), and never repeated the same mistake again since (see example given in my original appeal where I move on after my ideas failed to gain consensus)... which, coincidentally, happens to disprove your point that "Oldstone seems unable to accept that there might be any validity in criticism of their behaviour". ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not familiar with Oldstone James' actions in any of the other areas mentioned here, but his involvement in the "race and intelligence" article has not been disruptive, certainly not morese than that of numerous other people involved in the current dispute there. Oldstone James and JPS are on opposite sides of that dispute, and there are approximately equal numbers of editors on each side, so this is not a case where one side is clearly right or wrong. This report looks a lot like an attempt by JPS to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by eliminating one of his opponents via an administrative process, and that sort of approach ought to be discouraged. I oppose the expansion of Oldstone James' topic ban. 2600:1004:B11B:501F:D8D1:DACB:FE9C:8C9 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this comment, and hopefully it will shed light on the true nature of my contributions on the R&I talk page: that is, they are not obviously disruptive or obviously demonstrative of a lack of judgement, as at least half (in reality, quite a bit more than half) the editors agree with my position. For this same reason, they can't categorically and definitively be classified as "fringe POV pushing". As for jps's intentions of proposing an extension to my ban, I would like to assume good faith and suggest that the likely motive was simply his frustration with me, as I think is comprehensively demonstrated by this diff. But, in my opinion, this type of behaviour is simply a bit immature, and it's not very nice seeing him react in this way to my genuine attempts to understand my weaknesses and improve myself as an editor. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

iVoting quickly

No calling names

Fringe ban for our friend,

Oldstone James.

Burma Shave

Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Reacting angrily, often in the form of edit-warring, and baselessly accusing other editors of incompetence on grounds of personal self-righteousness actually seems to be a pattern for jps. Have a look at this ANI discussion from a previous conflict - [104] - which concluded in a 1RR restriction for jps due to edit-warring on his part, and especially these edits, where he likewise accuses editors with whom he doesn't agree of being incompetent: [105], [106]. Also take a look at this edit from an unrelated conflict with a totally different user, where his high-handedness really shines through: [107]; for context, the user was being accused for not having much desire... to gather third-party sources, while demonstrably adding third-party sources to the article in question; when this was pointed out by the editor, jps' reply was, I have not really seen you look for the kind of independent sources I think are of the highest quality, which I've now learnt is his go-to 'I don't agree with them, so they must be incompetent/doing things wrong' approach. This is another unrelated example of jps making a mistake, then falsely accusing other editors of making that very same mistake, then lying about the evidence (sounds familiar?). And now yet another example of jps baselessly accusing editors of not being able to accept criticism as a response to the other party disagreeing with them: [108]. Not surprisingly, jps also accuses this editor of incompetence in this same diff and also accuses them of being aggressive here (while demonstrably starting the fight first): [109]. In almost all of the above cases, there was at least some edit-warring to go with the condescending and self-righteous attitude as well. There is more evidence of exactly the same behaviour available, too, but I think what I've provided already is already suggestive enough.

Can someone please look into this issue objectively and assess the situation? Certainly, this is an issue that exists, and it's certainly disruptive. Not only does the user accuse anyone with whom he doesn't agree of being incompetent and unable to accept criticism, but he also systematically follows up this already disruptive pattern of behaviour with edit-warring. I have previously said that jps is valuable contributor to Wikipedia and that he is a net positive for the project. That may still be true, but how much benefit do you think a user whose only response to any disagreement with his ideas is to accuse the opposing party of incompetence and start edit-warring will bring to contentious articles, where each edit with any amount of controversy needs to be discussed with great care on the talk page before being implemented and where a rational consensus needs to constantly be developed? I am not sure how standard of a procedure this is, but I conditionally propose a boomerang topic ban on fringe content for jps. "Conditional" meaning that, if he shows clear signs that this pattern won't persist in the future, then a simple warning will be enough. Note that this proposal is not an attempt on my part to avoid an extension to my topic ban; instead, I call for editors to evaluate both cases independently and make the appropriate conclusions.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 05:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this discussion other than to say that the IP above clearly has strong views on R&I and this comment may reflect their position on the issue, and that you, User:Oldstone James would probably benefit from being more succinct. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A similar argument may be made for PaleoNeonate, I think. Also, "succinct" meaning "less verbose"? If so, notes taken. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban

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

---

• SS49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Deepfriedokra 12:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. Please lift the ban. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: see previous failed request to lift topic ban, from July. --Calton | Talk 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you explained why the ban should be lifted. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) On what grounds? You'd need to demonstrate understanding of why you were tbanned in the first place and provide a convicing case that you won't repeat it. Reyk _YO! 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Indeed. It would be helpful to know what advice you have taken in and how things will be different.-- Deepfriedokra 12:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would also ask why you need the unban? Why do you want to return to AfD? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would be cautiously in favour of allowing sorting, as a first step, but we've had drama around NACs and relisting so those feel more contentious. Sorting is thankless gnoming. Guy (help!) 09:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Why initiate discussion at AN and make no effort at further participation for over 24 hours? If the OP can not be bothered to answer inquiries why should we have any interest in going forward? Tiderolls 13:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Owen Shroyer

• Owen Shroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Shroyer

This article is back, thanks to a relatively new user. It actually has fewer sources than at deletion, no new sources that I can see, and much of (but not all) the same text. This looks a bit off to me. Guy (help!) 09:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Revdel Required

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

---

I believe a revdel is required at WP:ITNC, specifically for this edit. A formal warning may be in order as well. I am involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No revdel required. Warning may be in order. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted my comment and apologize for letting my temper get the better of me. Feel free to revdel.--WaltCip (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I would consider that "ordinary" incivility or PA, not rising to the level allowing use of WP:CRD#2. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SarekOfVulcan: Seriously? Gross violations of BLP and grossly offensive comments and personal attacks are almost always subject to revdel. And if this is not a gross violation of BLP then I've never seen one. @WaltCip: Thank you. Given your apology I don't believe a warning is required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

NM at this point trying to revdel it would require doing so to other comments and I think the disruption would be excessive. Under the circumstances I am content to let it go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: noting that the diff from your initial post remains revdeled by you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yeah. When I took a look at the editing history in the thread after my initial revdel failed, I realized that due to intervening edits I was going to have to revdel more than just Walt's comment and mine. I concluded that the level of disruption was more than it was worth and decided to just leave it alone. Thanks for the note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll unredact, as it'll only create more confusion otherwise. Agree with the above, and I think WaltCip gets it; no need for further action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC was unneutral, struckened and rewrittened after editors have already voted, then struckened and rewrittened: El_C

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

---

Hi, I am having some troubles with this admin El_C. I will try to create a timeline for the events.

• Wikaviani wrote an unneutral RfC in Talk:Qasem Soleimani
• I complained about it Wikaviani did not respond
• After three or more editors have voted El_C tried to fix the issue, here is what the RfC looked on the section on the talk page of Qasem Soleimani

As multiple reliable sources have been found supporting Iran's propaganda, i suggest to include a section about it. Please see the above thread---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:04 pm, 22 January 2020, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC+3)

Administrator note: this RfC editorializes, but it is about whether to include the paragraph that begins with the sentence: After his death, the Iranian propaganda campaign intensified disinformation efforts in creating fake news outlets, fabricating journalist personas, and systematically coordinating the international public opinion toward idolization of Soleimani. (permanent link) El_C 1:41 am, 24 January 2020, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC+3)

• Note how the editor Wikviani's comment was at the top while the "clarification" was down. AND, if you looked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/937430210%7Conly Wikviani's comment was shown there, this was brought to my attention later thanks to Redrose64.
• Now even that paragraph that El_C made didnt actually address the issue and I again had to explain to El_C that his paraphrasing is not helpful either so he struckened his comment and this is how it [[looked like

As multiple reliable sources have been found supporting Iran's propaganda, i suggest to include a section about it. Please see the above thread---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:04 pm, 22 January 2020, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC+3)

Administrator note: this RfC editorializes, but it is about whether to include the paragraph that begins with the sentence: After his death, the Iranian propaganda campaign intensified disinformation efforts in creating fake news outlets, fabricating journalist personas, and systematically coordinating the international public opinion toward idolization of Soleimani. El_C 1:41 am, 24 January 2020, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC+3) The RfC questions is: should the dedicated section on Iranian propaganda (diff) be included in the article? El_C 1:59 am, 24 January 2020, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC+3)

• Note the mess. Note that the Wikavini comment is still at the top and that it is the only comment that was shown here and other relative RfCs.
• I agreed with what El_C did. I thought that those who are going to participate will see El_C's comment.
• Today, I understood that all this time, Wikiavini's was the only comment shown in RfC-related pages. This happened after Wikiavini stroke his comment and then Redrose64 removed the RfC tag and said rfc statement has been struck: there is no longer a case to answer
• I then decided to close that RfC and start a new RfC and I was going to ping other editors.
• El_C reverted me and again attempted to solve the problem by again Special:Diff/937586361 starting a new discussion but with influenced votes in the RfC and with Wikiavini POV RfC comment at the top.
• Which one is right? Me or El_C? El_C didnt recognize the problem that there are potentially influenced votes in that RfC and that Wikiavini comment is still a problem at the top. If you need any diff please tell me, I might have missed some.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As the uninvolved admin, I queried the talk page about whether the RfC should close, with the comments submitted thus far discounted, and start anew. There was no consensus to do so. I fixed the problem with the RfC ID. If SharabSalam wishes to argue for the RfC to start anew, he is welcome to do so and if he gets the consensus to do so, all power to him. But he does not get to unilaterally decide to do it at this time. El_C 00:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is here, by the way. El_C 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, yea thats how it looks like after days of Wikiavini comment at the top and in RfC-related pages.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, That was a unneutral RfC, all editors agreed with that. A new RfC was the only solution but YOU unilaterally added a statement below that unneutral RfC as if thats how we wanted it to be. An unneutral RfC should be removed when there there are already potentially influenced votes and on top of your unilateral attempt, you didnt do it right and that POV statement was still in RfC-related pages.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There were some birthing pains, but I think we're fine now. I'm not inclined to discount the current comments submitted to the RfC, even if the question suffered from issues of neutrality. Again, the reason for this is that there was no consensus to undertake this when I queried the talk page. El_C 00:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, There are already influenced votes and as Wikaviani's comment was vague, many editors there might have misunderstood the RfC, tell me how you are going to fix that?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, undertaking that is a matter of local consensus. El_C 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am the one who was mistaken when i unintentionally wrote a non neutral RfC sentence (i wanted to summarize what was said in an above thread), El_C just fixed my mistake and i thank him for his help. Therefore, if someone should be sanctioned here, it's me and me alone. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, unintentionally wrote a non neutral. You can't write such a POV RfC unintentionally, hard to believe.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, now. That's uncalled for. El_C 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

huh? "Green!"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make sense of that reply. Who are you quoting and what don't you understand? Anyway, don't cast aspersions about someone's error being intentional is what I meant, in case there was any confusion. El_C 01:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't care about what you believe or not. You should read my RfC sentence more carefully, as i said, i wanted to summarize an above thread. Again, if someone has to be sanctioned here, it's me and nobody else, thus, i would suggest you to stop accusing El_C who tried to fix my mistake.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, how you not intentionally wrote a RfC that only support your argument. Did you not know that the "RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome"? Your vote was "Support as the nomination" and didnt you see my immediate replies to you?. Also, FYI, El_C didnt fix your mistake which is why I am here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you refuse to get the point, i won't waste my time repeating again and again what i said twice already. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• So there you have it guys, the unilateral attempt to solve the problem was made by El_C and it was a complete failure as it didnt solve the problem which that editors who have voted there might have been influenced by the RfC comment and misunderstood the question. My solution was from the beginning to start a new RfC and close the current one. El_C refused that and only went without consensus and attempted to fix the problem and then the attempt failed and the RfC wording was still there in RfC-related subjects. El_C didnt allow me to create a new RfC although all editors were saying that it is an unneutral RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation. The matter of whether to launch a new RfC is, once again, governed by local consensus. Consensus to do so is absent at this time. El_C 01:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, is there a consensus for your new RfC?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not new. All the comments are retained. Just the RfC ID is new. The question of whether to launch a new RfC was put to discussion, by me. One editor wanted to do so (SharabSalam) and one user did not (Ms96). This is where we're at. El_C 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, the pervious RfC was deleted and struckened and the wording "Wikaviniai comment" was different. You need consensus for a new RfC wording.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Our RfC questions are basically identical so I really don't know what you're talking about. El_C 01:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C No, the pervious RfC was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/937573389 As multiple reliable sources have been found supporting Iran's propaganda, i suggest to include a section about it. Please see the above thread your new RfC here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/937588982 "The RfC question is should the dedicated section on Iranian propaganda (diff) be included in the article?"

Those are completely different RfCs, so you not just seek consensus first before unilaterally creating a RfC? Or this rule not apply to you?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to my RfC question, which I added as an uninvolved administrator (I am not involved in the dispute), which I continue to be on that page, and your own anew RfC question. SharabSalam, stop messing with the RfC while this remains unresolved or I will partially block you from the talk page. El_C 01:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, so there are two editors who wrote two different RfCs with different IDs and different wording, that's not a new RfC? Please don't threats of blocks like that as you are involved and this will be an abuse of power.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not involved in the dispute. And if you continue to edit disruptively, you will be partially blocked to prevent that disruption from continuing. Also, as per your question: "Why do you need the adminship?", the answer can be partially found here. El_C 02:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. 2nd to last barnstar! El_C 02:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

PP.S. 5th to last barnstar, too! Everyone here is represented! El_C 02:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, You are an involved editor, you are always in Iran-related articles which is why we are always having issues in there just like this issue. I am sure that you know your solution was wrong and that you should have started a new RfC and closed the previous one and also pinged those who were involved. Just don't do it again. I shouldn't have asked you for help, I am sorry. Next time I will just another admin.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Please review my block

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

---

For context, please see this thread. I blocked for 72 hours for disruption.-- Deepfriedokra 12:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• 72 hours is a good start, and if they continue with the same editing after 72 hours, they are looking at an indef. Honestly, I respect your restraint in not giving them an indef right away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. TBH, the ANI thread is a little shrill, and it's pushing me toward no action. If someone could review that thread, there's a number of assertions that may need action.-- Deepfriedokra 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. I was considering doing the same (but maybe for longer). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'll just copy my query from ANI, I suppose: if the user was disruptive in just that one article, why not either: partial block or pull the EC user right. Both would have worked. I see you've done the latter but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• If it's endorsed and if I'm around. If someone less het up than I am could act? I'm het up and I don't like to act when I'm het up.-- Deepfriedokra 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse the block, noting that I had supported a block at WP:ANI. User:El_C - Why not a partial block or removing the EC right? The user was engaging in personal attacks, accusing other editors of vandalism, and of being a paid cabal, and was including the vandalism attacks in edit summaries, which are more disruptive than on talk pages because they are difficult to redact. The block was necessary. If the user resumes the disruption when they come off block, a longer block may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, split discussion! I won't copy my response to this this time, though. El_C 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Chicago

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

---

Ok, I have no idea how I managed to do this, but while attempting a simple copy-edit to this article I somehow appear to have blanked the entire page. As if that weren't bizarre enough, when I attempted to undo my edit, I was repeatedly denied, with a banner explaining that restoring the previous version would introduce a blacklisted link. I am at a total loss as to how I managed to do this, but it would seem to require administrative attention. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

city-data.com is the offending site. I replaced its use with a {{cn}}, so here's the net diff: [110]. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged! Joefromrandb (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal from Doncram

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

---

Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 72 hours by the BrownHairedGirl for disruption. They have posted voluminously about the block and surrounding issues. As they allege admin abuse, I asked BHG about posting here. She agrees. I'm not going to even try to post it here or to even summarize. If someone can have a look, please do. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra 11:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The block expires 2020-01-23 @ 09:22:28-- Deepfriedokra 02:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "good thing" about admin abuse is that it's easily identifiable. One sentence can provide what the admin did wrong, how they did it wrong and probably even why they did it wrong. If it can't be said in a sentence, don't bother saying it.
  Although as an object lesson in TL;DR, it's the platonic ideal. ——SN54129 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So come out of your cave walking on your hands//And see the world hanging upside down --Plato/Mumford and Sons-- Deepfriedokra 12:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Marcus Mumford's Administrators' Noticeboard and Philosophical Steakhouse  :) ——SN54129 15:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support block This appears to be this user's 12th block. 13th, but one of the blocks was in error. I see nothing wrong with the block except for its unexpectedly short duration given the history shown in the block log. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, but I suggest Doncram's misbehaviour doesn't rise to the level of an extended block at this time. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Note, though, that before the current block, the previous one was for 31 h in 2018 (for the same reason) and the one before that was in 2014. That likely explains the choice of block length. EdChem (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Good block (ow, my eyes...) Looks like a good block to me, the wall of text doesn't convince me that BHG is abusing the mop. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Good block. Perhaps extend the length to a week or so to give Doncram a chance to see what others think and take on board what they have said. As an uninvolved editor who commented on his talk page before he created the second unblock request. It appears even clearer to me now that he is displaying WP:IDHT behaviour; his second unblock rquest straight up ignores what everyone else is saying and going after BHG and denying that he is making up allegations (then in rhe next paragraph continuing to make more allegations), It is sad that an editor who has been productive elsewhere has to be blocked for refusal to follow one rule. Tknifton (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. The editor's attitude would suggest that this will become an indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Another admin should have decided whether to block: BHG and Doncram have a longstanding disagreement on WP:REDNOT which has been going on for months, making BHG WP:INVOLVED. BHG should have brought it to this board and an uninvolved admin should have made the call. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An admin explaining a policy or guideline to a user (even at length) doesn't make that admin involved, but is what admins should do before blocking: if an editor makes mistakes, check whether the problem has been explained and warnings been given, and if the problems persist, block. Whether these explanations and warnings were given by the same or by another admin has no importance. (Good block, by the way). Fram (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block. This appears to be a pattern of behavior; I disagree that BHG was involved; it appears that her prior involvement was in an administrative capacity in terms of warning and explaining policy and the like. The IDHT nature of the unblock requests only further adds to the notion that it was a proper block. --Jayron32 16:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• No admin abuse and no involvement violation, block is within admin discretion. Doncram can get unblocked by making a commitment to cease the behaviour that led to the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block All Doncram needs to do is make a firm commitment to never add non-existent categories. How can that be controversial? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for all the feedback, folks. It's all a bit sad. Doncram has been a prolific and dedicated creator of NRHP articles for over a decade, mostly at the start-class grade (WikiScan shows 13,490 article creations). His individulal creations are not stellar, but it seems to be broadly sold and uncontroversial, and that that sort of diligent in-depth coverage is very valuable even if none of it goes beyond start-class.
  Unfortunately, Doncram is less skilled at all the collaborative aspects of en.wp, and often has strained relations with WikiProject National Register of Historic Places.
  I have encountered editors like this several times elsewhere: valuable diligence, which never comes near FA quality, but genuinely adds value to en.wp ... but the poor collaborative skills can lead to side-effects of disruption which need to be restrained but are hard to resolve. In this case, the block log shows that the community hasn't had much success in helping Doncram avoid conflict, and my own efforts haven't had a higher success rate. It seems to me that the community as a whole could use some insight onto how best to help editors like this get to a place where their dilegence can be valued without big "but"s which lead to blocks and dramas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  That seems like a fair summary, but possibly a tricky task. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  I think that's a fair summary, but there's really no need for people to pile on the "good block" comments. This is pretty obviously an editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but seems unable to concede that consensus goes the other way sometimes. If someone could persuade Doncram to make a far less verbose appeal for unblocking then that might be successful. I find BrownHairedGirl's comments in this case a bit too wordy for my liking, but Doncram's are completely over the top. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:ROUGE applies. Sound block, Doncram needs to wind his neck in. Guy (help!) 23:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) In their most recent edit Doncram has continued to display WP:IDHT and has even gone so far as suggested that we are trying to cover for BHGs "Abuse" (he also claims he should be allowed to continue to violate WP:REDNOT. Tknifton (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly bothered by those comments; blocked users often feel the need to vent, insofar as they don't devolve into base personal attacks, I'm always inclined to let them scream into the void for a while. I wouldn't do anything further do Doncram unless and until there is further disruption to the article space. He has ample evidence for what is going to be done if he persists in adding redlinked categories to articles, and so long as he doesn't actually do that again, he can advocate for changing Wikipedia policy on the matter all he wants. No one should be blocked for having a contrarian view on any Wikipedia policy, so long as their view does not spill into violations of said policy in the article space itself, let him rail against it. --Jayron32 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Doncram::, you should be aware that if your disruptive behavior continues, you may face a longer block or a partial block, or an extension of the current block. You are advised to rethink your repose bearing in mind WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF.-- Deepfriedokra 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

There, I fixed it

Apparently, my infobox generator was allowing "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" to be listed as a category, even though it doesn't exist. I've always cautioned editors to be careful and to proofread the output of the infobox generator, but sometimes people don't do that. So, I made a code fix.

In common.php around line 424:

       // HACK of a fix so people don't keep stuffing bogus categories into infoboxes
       if (strcmp($row[0], "Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States" == 0) ) {
           $row[0] = "THIS CATEGORY DOES NOT EXIST";
           continue;
       }

I need to get back to my day job now, but suffice it to say that I think this should alleviate the problem. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)