Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331

Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC at BLP article Emanuel Cleaver

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

---

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Emanuel_Cleaver#RfC_about_Amen_&_Awomen. I think it's been many years since I made one of these, but I felt that the facts here were really egregious. The disputed content related to a brief "mini-controversy" relating to a living person, so WP:BLP applies. The closing editor, who is not an administrator, concluded that there was "a weak but present consensus" for inclusion and that the material was "notable" and "relevant for inclusion." This is an inappropriate outcome (WP:BADNAC) that went against the consensus in the discussion (WP:SUPERVOTE) for several reasons:

• Numerically, 7 users opposed inclusion, and 7 users supported inclusion.

• Substantively, the users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons why inclusion would be inappropriate.
  • the coverage in reliable sources was very modest and was almost entirely limited to a week after the event.
  • the minimal coverage in RS was primarily about reactions to a random statement, fueled by a handful of pundits and Twitter.
  • there was no evidence of any lasting biographical significance.

• The arguments of users supporting inclusion, and the non-admin closer's argument, basically boiled down to "there is some coverage," there was a "large number of sources," and the material was "notable" and "relevant." But:
  • "notability" is not a term that applies to content within articles.
  • We don't make coverage decisions based purely on a "large number of sources" or what is "relevant," especially when (as here) the sources repeat each other or come from a quite compressed time period. We look to the quality of sources, the importance of what they say in the context of the topic, the significance of the material.
  • Not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article — and this is especially true in areas, like U.S. politics, in which nearly everything generates lots of coverage.

• The inclusion of this content left the article out of whack — for example, as a result of this NAC, the coverage in the article on this trivial statement is three times as long as the coverage of the subject's 8 years as mayor of a major U.S. city. That does a disservice to our readers.

• The non-admin closer asserted that there was a "weak but present consensus" but that is a reversal of our usual practice — a "weak" consensus should usually not sufficient for new, contentious, challenged materials relating to biographies of living persons

• Wikipedia:Non-admin closure says that "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." That's clearly the case here: a NAC is completely inappropriate on a BLP of an American politician where the issue is contentious and editors who commented were evenly split.

For these reasons, I request that the non-admin closure be overturned. Neutrality^talk 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

• Overturn. Per my rationale above, we should either overturn the close to "consensus to omit" or "no consensus, thus omit"), or we should vacate the non-admin closure and let an uninvolved admin close the RfC, per our policy. Neutrality^talk 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Greetings, Neutrality. Care to explain why, besides being being the nominator for overturning the closure, you are also !voting to overturn? Isn't this overburdening the overturn count? -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak endorse/potential alternate close requested - all the support participation has valid policy backing them, though a couple are "per sources" etc (when you're the sixth person, it's hard to come up with something novel). However, 2 of the oppose !votes stating purely "triviality" seem somewhat dubiously supported in policy (though some assumed premises/"what I meant was" could certainly get them in, if reading broadly). I think it's not beyond the bounds of comprehension to have this close. A no consensus could also be justified. An omit, could not. BADNAC#C2 may have some validity - while it's a relatively minor RfC compared to all in existence, it's definitely under "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial". I would be fine with saying "have an admin reclose. They may agree with the nac's position". Nosebagbear (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closer’s closing statement weak but present consensus that the statement is notable and relevant for inclusion in the article demonstrates that the closer does not understand the Wikipedia term-of-art “notable”. Topics are notable or not, not statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus for inclusion, which means omit given WP:BLPUNDEL. The thrust of opposition was from the text of WP:V Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and so those seeking to include the information needed to present some more substantial argument than simply "sourcing exists". This is an editorial decision, and editors needed to decide whether the content is WP:DUE in the broader context of the subject's life. Opposition said it is not with relatively well reasoned arguments. Supporters largely pointed to the mere existence of sources, or made claims related to "notability" which was either misunderstood or misapplied. Either way supporters neither numerically nor in strength of arguments showed that the event is obviously necessary. Given the lack of consensus, the close should have resulted in exclusion of the material. Ceterem autem censeo BADNAC#2 esse delendam (c.f. Wikipedia:Non-sysop closures). — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• To briefly respond directly to the allegations that I am engaging in WP:SUPERVOTE behavior, (defined in the referenced essay as a close "that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion"). I offered my reasoning for ascertaining what the community had come to rough consensus on. I am disappointed that Neutrality, an editor for whom I have generally held a lot of respect, would impugn my motives by implicitly asserting that I am picking my preferred close rather than engaging in good-faith efforts to ascertain the consensus at the discussion in which I have had no part. I respectfully ask that the editor strike that portion of their comment.

My response to the content of the appeal is as follows:

1. WP:NAC is an essay, which as such does not necessarily reflect consensus. Neutrality asserts that it is inappropriate for an editor to engage in the closure of a close discussion and points to an essay to defend it. I respectfully disagree with Neutrality's analysis of the consensus of the discussion here and I transparently provided my rationale on my talk page. Neutrality, who was involved in the discussion and favored an outcome of non-inclusion, is certainly within their rights to appeal here, but the portion of the appeal that pertains to my status as a non-admin does not base itself firmly upon established policies and guidelines.
2. Challenged content in a BLP should article only where there is rough consensus, read in light of policy. As I noted in my response to you on my talk page, my assessment is that such a consensus was achieved in the discussion. I may have made a mistake in using the term "weak" instead of "rough", though the two convey the same meaning in plain English. The use of rough consensus is not a reversal from usual policies, though it would be the case that we ought to omit the material if there is no consensus.
3. The evidence presented by editors cast significant doubt upon the claim that there was "minimal coverage in RS" of the event. Editors party to the discussion (especially The Gnome) provided a plethora of sources discussing the utterance and the response to it, which garnered significant and substantial worldwide reactions. As the long list of sources showed, these reactions were not limited to the anglosphere (Spain's second largest newspaper published a column about it) and there was significant in-depth coverage of the utterance. Significant coverage alone does not guarantee inclusion, of course, but it's does not appear to be the case that there was only "minimal" coverage of the utterance.
4. I agree that WP:BLP applies and I noted so in my response. I also noted that there do not appear to be any apparent policy violations as it pertains to BLP if the content is to be included, provided that there exists consensus to include the content. If there is no consensus, the content should be removed until consensus is achieved.
5. If you read through my response, you will note that I did not actually link to the general notability guidelines. This was precisely for the reason that Neutrality stated, which is that those notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. My language may have been a bit imprecise (I did write that the key question was consensus on "notable enough to include", rather that the key question was whether or not there was consensus on "the significance of the content for the article"). But, if you read the analysis I provided in plain English, I believe that you would not conclude that I am unaware of the scope of WP:N.

I have tremendous respect for the work that Neutrality does and has done for Wikipedia, but I respectfully disagree with the arguments presented by Neutrality in this appeal. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• You seem very experienced for someone who has only been here for a year and a half. I hope it isn't rude to ask this, but have you had other accounts? Mo Billings (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mo Billings, yes its rude to ask unless you have some reason to suspect wrong doing.  // Timothy :: talk  04:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's a good thing, then, that he wrote You seem very experienced for someone who has only been here for a year and a half. Did you miss that? --Calton | Talk 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I personally haven’t had other accounts. The way I got introduced to editing was by a university professor who gave us a rundown of Wikipedia's rules and regulations before my class started editing the page that (after a few moves) became the Uyghur genocide article. I took a break for a while but I returned over the winter to continue editing and to get more involved in the project overall. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Calton, that is not a reason to suspect wrong doing.  // Timothy :: talk  08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Absolute baloney. You would think that YEARS of allegedly-new-yet-very-knowledgeable-of-the-fine-print-wikilawyering users eventually turning out to be sockpuppets or banned users might trigger the tiniest bit of suspicion in a veteran editor instead of pointless tone policing. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close If I had noticed it was a non-admin close, I would've beaten Neutrality to posting this. I would like to see an admin review this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn close, per Neutrality. The extended wiki-lawyering by Mikehawk10 makes his action seem even more of an attempt to force his own conclusion to the discussion. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I’ll vacate the close. I maintain my technical and substantial objections to the grounds of the appeal, but this is starting to look like a snowball-ish discussion that will end in favor of the appeal. Everyone else so far (regardless of whether they wanted to overturn to no-consensus or weakly endorse the close) seems to be endorsing the idea that an admin closure would be better. While I have stated my objections to the appeal, I don't see it appropriate to further delay the outcome and take up more admin time on this noticeboard, as there is a clearly emerging consensus on this discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You seem to have enough grasp of WP policies, etc., to dabble in admin areas, but you need a bit more experience to understand the nuances of applying said policies, etc. I think this is a positive step towards gaining more experience. A dash of humility might aid in that journey, too. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose overturn. Despite this having being a non-admin closure, it has been correct. The only legitimate excuse offered for the overturn is the numerical argument (7 versus 7) but this is surpassed by the quality of each side's arguments. Before quickly going over the proposer's arguments, let me recap the "do not include" arguments, paraphrased for the sake of space: "It's a dad joke"; "No one will remember it in a litle while"; "it was only reported for brief spell and the forgotten"; and "it was used by political & ideological opponents." None of these arguments holds water within Wikipedia rules & policies, yet we are apparently expected to take them seriously - and count them as valid suggestions.

Now as to the proposal's arguments for overturning:

•"users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons": No, they did not. What they did was mostly offer opinions of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety.

•"the coverage in reliable sources was very modest": This is the most extraordinary of all arguments! The coverage was as large as it can get. I offered a sample of RS's from around the globe, and one could easily offer another batch of twice as many. The coverage has actually been the opposite of "modest."

•"the coverage was almost entirely limited to a week after the event": Actually, there are sources that comment on Cleaver's action and elaborate on it more than a week after the event, but, even if the reporting lasted one week, there is nothing that prevents a person's action from being included in his BLP article if it has been reported so widely for a week. In any biography, there are perforce items supported by RS coverage that lasts for a brief period of time.

•"coverage was primarily about reactions to a random statement, fueled by a handful of pundits and Twitter": No matter how notability is created (or "fuelled"), it remains notability. As sources irrefutably prove, this was nothing like "social media-created notability" (a claim the proposer fails to support), although we of course have articles about people and other subjects whose notability rests in the field of social media. As to Cleaver's action being a random statement, this is as clear a personal opinion as it can get! We're not in Cleaver's mind, we're not here to offer essentially political viewpoints, and we do not possess crystal balls.

•"there was no evidence of any lasting biographical significance." Again, we do not possess crystal balls. So far, notability has been firmly established. Time will show the wiser.

•"'notability' is not a term that applies to content within articles": We have established that notability for the event exists. Now, we are to examine if that notability should be discounted. Well, the relevant guideline states that content coverage within a given article or list, i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list, is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. The content policies refer strictly to rather technical issues as we see in the link within the guideline, e.g. article titles; image use policy; no original research; etc. Now, abt "due weight", the main caution involves posting up the views of tiny minorities but here we have exactly the opposite of "minorities"; we have the world's media paying rapt attention.

•"sources repeat each other": The New York Times reporting event XYZ in appproximately or even in the same manner as, for example, Pravda, does not mean that one necessarily "copied" the other! It usually means that there are limited ways of reporting the event. The specific action by Cleaver cannot be improvised upon too much in reportages. Yet it still got reported as widely as possible.

•"we look to the quality of sources, the importance of what they say in the context of the topic, the significance of the material": This is dumbfounding. What is wrong quality-wise with the sources proffered for verifiability? The proposer is challenged to offer grounds for disputing the quality of the sources cited. The "importance" and the significance of their reporting is evident within their texts. Anyone can reject the world's media as being of low quality and reporting "insignificant" events but this would be wrong.

•"not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article — and this is especially true in areas, like U.S. politics, in which nearly everything generates lots of coverage": No recent event in US politics, save for the events surrounding the transition of presidential power, generated this kind of worldwide coverage, from Greece to China and from Britain to Russia, and the proposer is again challenged to demonstrate otherwise.

•"the inclusion of this content left the article out of whack — for example, as a result of this NAC, the coverage in the article on this trivial statement is three times as long as the coverage of the subject's 8 years as mayor of a major U.S. city": Well, that's not truly our or anyone's fault, is it? A person can spend a lifetime working and perhaps doing good work too, yet becoming more known (and Wikinotable) for one single thing they do. Examples abound! We are not here to enforce procrustean balance; if an article seems "out of whack" that may actually be because events shaped it so, as indeed happened in Cleaver's life and biography.

There is nothing of substance that could possibly justify an overturn. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"users opposing inclusion clearly offered up specific, Wikipedia-policy reasons": No, they did not

Other editors might want to take a look at the discussion and see how far off-base that claim is. Take note, also, of User:The Gnome bludgeoning of the discussion, with occasional pearl-clutching. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Off-base"?! Care to point out the connection between the information and the Wikipolicy reasons offered? I've seen few, if any. As to my "bludgeoning" the discussion, I will not contend that I persisted in pointing out the significant discrepancies in opposite arguments a bit much, though it is not a reason for the closure to go one way or another. In any case, it will be amusing to witness information abnout an event that was literally reported around the globe disappear from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close It may not a formal policy or formal guideline, but I consider the essay language recommending strongly against closes where "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator," to be eminently reasonable, logical and widely accepted among experienced editors. This type of discussion is a waste of time, and it would have been far better if an administrator had closed this discussion. As to the substance of the issue, the notion that a short lived tempest in a teapot about a mild linguistic joke should absolutely dominate the biography of a living person with a long career of public service? Shame on the editors who advance that bogus argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: In fact, that part is in a guideline. WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Correct, MarkH21. The essay text accurately explains and elaborates on the language of the guideline. Controversial NAC closes are a mistake, and a time sink for all concerned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• The user undid (or "vacated") their close [1], so why is this still open? Can an admin mosey over the to talk page at their earliest convenience and re-close the RfC? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• This should be closed: per Bison X, there is no more issue to discuss, the close has been undone and awaits uninvolved admin close.  // Timothy :: talk  06:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Please help someone

My edits are similar to normal legal edits, the admins will approve of me, I am mostly adding Baloch information, and there are no violations in my edits, but members related to the political system of Pakistan or Iran are getting in my way, but here is mine Please, what have I edited badly here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_of_Kalat&action=edit&undoafter=1012136587&undo=1012136894 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali banu sistani (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) This page is not for discussing content disputes.

(2) In reverting your edit [2], Kautilya3 wrote "Sorry, you need to use contemporary historians for writing about history", which seems pretty clear.

(3) If you did not understand Kautilya3's comment, you should have asked them to clarify on their user talk page, or, better yet, on the article talk page.

(4) Because you were reporting a specific users' edits, you should have notified them of this report, as it says to do in the big, bright, orange box on the top of the page and in the editnotice when you wrote your comment. I will do this for you.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ali banu sistani, please note that all edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. You do not have an indefinite right to add whatever content you please. You do need to convince the other editors that your content is appropriate and meets the standards needed for Wikipedia.

When an edit is reverted, the normal practice is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. You have reinstated your content without a word of explanation. That constitues edit warring. The warning message I have given you tells you to do precisely to discuss the issues on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Khanate of Kalat. So that is where you need to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help with Israeli Wine page.

• Israeli wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has been used to drag the Israeli Arab conflict into the page. I have been bullied by other editors trying to stop me from fixing it.

I am unsure as to how to deal with this and fear it will go back and forth.

Someone, please give me some guidance on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medic505 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, first things, first. There are restrictions on who may edit the portion of that page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict; this clearly stated on the talk page and on the notice that you see when you open the editing page: Users who edit the identified content....must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. You have far fewer than 500 edits and so are prohibited from editing that portion of the page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I suggest you confine yourself to putting forward your suggestions for improving the article on Talk:Israeli wine and engaging in discussion about it there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected for 3 months since this has been going on for a while based on the edit history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Medic505. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Jewish resident of California's Napa Valley wine country, and I have visited Israel twice, including visits to the West Bank and the Golan Heights, where there are many vineyards. I have a friend who has worked as a consultant to several Israeli wineries. I like and support Israeli wines and try them when I have the chance. That being said, the Israeli-Arab conflict has had a significant impact on the Israeli wine industry, and that should be reflected neutrally in this article. In my view, the article should not be stripped of discussion of this controversy. But this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. The proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Israeli wine where it has been nearly a year since anybody said anything. There are various forms of dispute resolution available, and you should be aware that all articles related to the Israeli-Palestian conflict are subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First, your being Jewish is immaterial to the conversation. Second The Israeli Arab conflict has very little to do with Israeli wine. Do we talk about any other conflicts on wine pages in the world or does only Israel get that special treatment? Second much of what they have posted about the conflict is also wrong. As such, there is no neutrality. That is what I am challenging.--Medic505 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, despite your snark, Wikipedia editors are required to disclose their conflicts of interest and I have disclosed my mild COI here. Do you have any conflicts of interest to declare? Your claim that the I-P conflict has little to do with the topic of Israeli wine is questionable since these issues have had a negative effect on the export potential of these wines. Again, we do not resolve content disputes at this noticeboard and you should make your content related points at Talk: Israeli wine. This conversation is about behavior, including yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No snark intended. I do not do identity politics. Your religion is not a conflict. If you were an importer of wine, that might be a conflict, if you were vintor in Israel it might be a conflict, but your religion is not a conflict. I focus on debating the issue, not the person. I posted here looking for direction on how to dispute and resolve this. Posting in the talk will not accomplish anything I am looking for a neutral party to get involved who can A decide whether anything about the Israeli Arab conflict is even relevant and then if so correct what is incorrect.--Medic505 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, your failure to discuss the matter at the proper venue Talk: Israeli wine , which every experienced editor would advise you to do, is not helpful to the goal of improving the article, and a poor choice on your part. You are entitled to your opinion regarding identity politics, but you are obligated to disclose your conflicts of interest, as are all other editors. I submit that my willingness to disclose is a good thing, and I will continue doing so. Please make the same disclosure, and please do it in your next edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to disclose, thanks for insinuating that I do. I believe there is a process for when something can not be resolved in the talk that is what I came here--Medic505 (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC) looking for help with.

How the heck can you possibly claim that the matter cannot be dealt with at Talk: Israeli wine when you have not posted there and that talk page has been silent for eleven and a half months, Medic505? That makes zero sense. Take it to the talk page, or move on to something else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is pretty clear from the response I got to my changes of just reversing them and then attempts to bully me into silence and the removal of the dispute tag. --Medic505 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, your response is not acceptable. You are verbose here but silent where it counts, namely Talk: Israeli wine. Use that talk page or drop the subject. Period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I did I put the neutrality into question and it was immediately removed, in violation of the rules if I am not mistaken, and so I came here for help.--Medic505 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. And you have been given help -- good advice -- which you have so far ignored. Talk: Israeli wine: use it. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How am I mistaken? Am I not allowed to challenge neutrality? My understanding is once challenged there is a process to resolving it which was not followed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medic505 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a process to challenge neutrality, Medic505, and step #1 in that process is to discuss your concerns at Talk: Israeli wine, which you have been told to do umpteen times here and elsewhere, and yet have failed to do. That is your mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Medic505, your 2nd mistake was attacking Cullen328, who would have likely helped you in several ways but has no reason to now. Your first mistake was not taking it to the talk page before coming here, which is forgivable, but now that you know this, it isn't acceptable if you don't make that your next move. You might try attacking people less, particularly those that are trying to help you and simply sharing their familiarity with the subject matter in which you have an interest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No attack was intended as I stated before "no snark intended", my apologies to Cullen³²⁸ if it came across as an attack. Just trying to figure out how to navigate fixing the page which I would have thought would be simple, and getting bullied with threats of being blocked for trying to do so. I came here looking for how to navigate the process.--Medic505 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Medic505, you have now posted eleven times on this noticeboard, and ZERO times at the proper place to discuss your concerns, which is Talk: Israeli wine. Can you please explain your refusal to describe your concerns in the correct place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mainly a lack of understanding of how this process works which I still have, and when I posted a dispute to the neutrality it was deleted. Now the page was locked with the other editor's edits, instead of locking it with mine and letting them challenge it. So basically I am looking to the admins to create fairness. The current page makes it more about the Arab Israeli dispute than about Israeli wine. It would be way more reasonable to put links to relevant pages of related issues. Wiki should be about factual information and not have it bathed in bias and opinion.--Medic505 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Five reverts by 5 different users in one day is a bit much for a page subject to WP:1RR, I find. Will try to remember to restore the ECP after the full protection expires (if not, please remind me). El_C 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Now the talk option does not even exsist so there is no way to even discuss changes?--Medic505 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not so. Access to the article talk page remains unaffected. Also, please review WP:INDENT. El_C 22:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the talk page - sorry the link moves when the page gets locked. --Medic505 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Um, why in the world is this fully protected? One user, who is violating ARBPIA in every edit to this noticeboard, has edit-warred. Another editor restored those changes then apologized for the edit. There is zero reason to fully protect this page. Extended-confirmed would be nice though. And enforcing ARBPIA4 would likewise be nice. nableezy - 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You know what would be "nice," Nableezy? You acknowledging that said apology (20:40, 13 March 2021‎) occurred after the full protection was imposed (17:06, 13 March 2021‎ ). Or that the edit warring continued (23:33, 12 March 2021‎) after the WP:ECP was likewise imposed (21:43, 12 March 2021‎). Oh well, one can dream. El_C 02:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What edit-warring? There is exactly one revert in the recent history of that article that isnt enforcing the 500/30 rule. How is that edit-warring? How does that justify full protection? nableezy - 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And zero edits this year unrelated to this edit war. But why let a good complaint go to waste, as a motivational technique or whatever? El_C 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I count two, not one, post-ECP reverts ([3][4]). This reminds me, though, how last year Nableezy came to my talk page to complain how much my ARBPIA enforcement sucked or whatever, but then immediately followed that up with an additional ARBPIA enforcement request. The strange thing is that I remember them actually being somewhat surprised I didn't feel motivated to provide additional assistance at that time. Oh well, self-reflection can be a harsh mistress... Admins: the ARBPIA fun times never end! Line up! El_C 04:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no good complaint here. There is quite literally no reason for full protection, but I cant say I care enough to argue the point further. One editor restoring a bad edit (and apologizing for it) and another editor reverting it is not an edit-war. nableezy - 01:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I apologized for reverting ALL the sources, not that some of them should not be in the article. For example, whoprofits.org is not a RS and should be removed, especially without attribution. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So, no risk of edit warring there, I guess. But what do I know? I've only protected +6,000 pages. And enforcing ARBPIA4 would likewise be nice. Nice, nice, sugar and spice. Again, I'm sure admins will be lining up to assist, with that much positivity abound. Wouldn't you say, Nableezy? Not only does one get to feel appreciated but there's also, uh, so much fun-in-the-sun to be had. Till next time, then. El_C 02:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with edit requests system

Dormskirk has raised the following concern about the edit requests backlog and general operation of the system, which I said was worth raising here: "the whole edit request system seems to be broken. There is a backlog of some 224 edit requests going back over four months which, in my recollection, is as bad as it has ever been. Meanwhile paid editors are not complying with the edit request system: you just have to look at Ferrexpo, Kingspan and Ocado to see that that conflicted editors are now inserting text directly into articles with impunity. In the real world there would be leadership from seniors to fix a broken system but because wikipedia is a community such issues never get addressed.

My own observation from someone who occasionally recommends that people make edit requests is that the backlog was pretty much eliminated for a time thanks to the efforts of one editor, Spintendo, but that since they're no longer so active, things have spiralled out of hand again. Obviously the success of a whole system such as this shouldn't rest on one editor. Do others have any thoughts on how to make progress on this issue (not just the backlog, but perhaps broader reform)? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the first step is for administrators and editors who are forcing paid editors into the COI request queue or AFC queue to acknowledge that there is no actual requirement for conflicted editors to use those queues if they are otherwise submitting edits that are defensible from an encyclopedic perspective. The over-strict interpretation and application of the COI guideline can be seen in effect at WP:COI/N with the indefinite blocking and naked reverting of disclosed paid editors. Pinging Justlettersandnumbers and Possibly for comment. –xeno^talk 12:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, as in many things, deciding and writing "encyclopedically defensible" can be easier said than done, primarily around the issues of NON-COI editor researching broad and narrow context for NPOV, eg., unmentioned spin and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: thanks for the ping. I don't see a connection between asking people to use talk page edit requests if they have COI and the edit request backlog. The backlog has 228 current requests. I have only interacted with one of the editors making a request, who has made edit requests for five different articles on the list. So it's 5/228, at least for my part.--- Possibly (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No concern with asking; as long as it remains an ask. Editors who acknowledge the guidance and choose to edit directly are permitted to do so and their edits should be engaged on an editorial basis, the same as any other editor submitting changes for collaborative review. All editors bring bias to editing and all edits are subject to scrutiny, yet still most editors (including paid) are permitted to submit changes directly. With disclosure, paid editors are making it easier to scrutinize their potentially compromised edits and should not be treated any more harshly than other editors with undisclosed biases (i.e. every single one of us). None of this precludes asking paid editors to comply with policy such as "not promotional" so they can adapt their editing to be within project scope. Forcing disclosed paid editors into a backlogged and currently understaffed process merely kicks that can down the road (potentially to another contributor, if the asking users don’t also respond to requests to that queue) and encourages undisclosed paid editing, further increasing administrative overhead and backlogs (is the paid-en-wp queue still hopelessly backlogged?). –xeno^talk 14:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying as a theory, but do not see it as being an actual issue in practice, at least from what I have seen at COIN.--- Possibly (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• DGG: you’ve done a lot of good work on that queue and integrating these types of edits- how can we attract editors and admins to staffing that queue? Are you able to improve WP:COIRESPONSE with additional best practices or useful approaches for editors willing to help with the backlog? –xeno^talk 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Some of our processes are broken by design. I see no reason why paid editors should expect a quick response to their edit requests from volunteers, who have better things to do. As for them making edits directly, as xeno says we can't force anyone to follow the guidelines in WP:COI, which only "strongly discourages" such edits. We could eliminate this backlog and make life much, much easier for those trying to clean up commissioned spam if we just forbade paid editing, but that seems unlikely to get broad consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that much different from almost every policy or guideline: we can't force almost anyone to do anything, whether it is complying with V, NPOV, OR, or being CIVIL, following DR, etc, and to the extent any account can get blocked, it will almost never occur unless there is brightline, or extensively obvious fault (and then sotto voce, there is the next account). We are, by design ('anyone can edit'), left almost exclusively with asking, instructing, pleading, hoping, lecturing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who's been responding to enough edit requests lately that the (kind, helpful, and a net positive) paid editor on the talk page of the article I've been helping with has taken to pinging me directly when she has a new one, I'm inclined to sympathize with this but not entirely agree with it. Volunteers quite certainly have better things to do than respond to COI requests, but if we have too many better things to do, they'll just give up and black-hat it -- doesn't exactly decrease our workload or make the project look good. The best paid editors are genuinely positive contributors to the project whose dedication to their topics is unusually high (they are, after all, unusually motivated). There's good reason to wade through the trash. (Of course, even with the good ones, you need to really be sure you're not unbalancing the article in a promotional direction.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• A similar thread was recently opened at the village pump, and it resulted in the creation of a new wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Edit requests. It seems there are a few users interested in improving the edit request system and some procedural improvements are already going on. --MarioGom (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• In the particular corner of Wikipedia that I haunt - articles about U.S. colleges and universities - I have begun adding additional advice to COI editors to the effect of "if no one responds to your request in a timely manner, feel free to post a brief message at the Talk page for the higher education project." I think that works reasonably well as it provides those editors with an outlet that connects them with a (very small) group of editors who have a specific interest in those articles and thus are more likely to respond to a request for help. Perhaps other editors who respond to COI editors with advice can do something similar and try to provide those COI editors with one or two projects or other venues (e.g., some noticeboards might be appropriate for some requests such as WP:BLPN for an article about a living person) to try if they don't get a timely response to their request...? ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I now have chosen an edit request (one of the older ones) and spent 30 minutes researching sources to figure out whether the suggested edit conforms to our policies. If every request requires 30 minutes of an experiences editor time, the system is not viable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this, Ymblanter. I haven't dealt with many edit requests, and whenever I did, it was a very time-consuming process. The problem, however, might be paid editing itself. People are paid to make edits that do not striclty adhere to our policies, whether intentional or unintentional doesn't affect the result. The result is a need for volunteer time spent solely on fixing their mistakes. This can happen in articles, this can happen in the request queue, this can happen at AfC. Skipping or enforcing the review process just moves the time problem between places. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  (and regarding non-financial COIs: As we all know, enthusiasm can be exactly like payment; it can even outperform payment in terms of motivation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's why I typically restrict my editing in that area to my specific area of expertise where it's usually relatively quick for me to evaluate a request and respond to it. I'm also not shy about asking follow up questions both to (a) verify the request and the underlying source(s) and (b) ensure the request is specific and straight forward to implement. That's also why I made the suggestion above to also point COI editors to relevant projects and noticeboards where editors who have already expressed a specific interest in that topic may be willing to help. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to go through some of Spintendo's history to see how they handled edit requests given they previously handled quite a bit. I looked at a couple when this issue was raised at Village Pump, and from those it appears if the request did not follow the "change x to y" type format, Spintendo pushed back. Although, this was admittedly a teeny sampling. S0091 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Many edit requests will take only a few minutes, if they're no more than updating financial figures or the name of an executive, and a good source is properly given. But these are the sort of requests that coi editors should be able to make on their own. However, anything more substantial takes much longer. When it involves a addition of substantial new material, or a change in corporate structure, or a general proposed removal of what the coi editor thinks is bias, it can take not just 15 minutes, but many hours, and require extensive back and forth and considerable checking of the actual sources. This will be true of the best of systems here, but it is particularly true of ours, where multiple individual edits are suggested, and each one is negotiated. . I have done this a few times, sometimes with good results, but I have decided that I simply will not do this any longer, nor would I ask anyone else to work this way.

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I will gladly teach at considerable length any good faith volunteer editor who shows a willingness to learn, if they work in a field I can understand.

But when a coi editor asks the same of me, they are asking me to do my unpaid volunteer work to make improvements for which they will be paid. I have nothing against paid editing in other contexts: I've done some myself, before joining the encyclopedia. But I will not assist it here. If good coi editing happens anyway, and is properly declared, I won't try to remove it, but that coincidence is extremely rare. A very few people have been able to do good volunteer work along with some adequate paid editing on the side, but none I'm aware of has been able to do equally good paid editing as they do for their own private interests. We all know why: proper NPOV editing will generally not be accepted by their employers. No editor can make an honest living out of it; those who continue mostly do it as a supplementary service to their PR clients.

As remarked above, this can apply to unpaid coi also. Not always--someone who has learned to edit properly in volunteer work can occasionally make a brief factual article on a subject with some degree of coi, as I did for my now-deceased thesis advisor, when the relevant wikiproject asked that someone do it. But normally the most persistent arguments about content have come from those with a direct personal non financial involvement--often a relative of the individual.

The answer to requests for an article I learned here long ago remains the best "When you are notable enough for an article, someone else will write one". This can be extended to requests for substantial changes: "If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice." That might be a little unfair--there are a great many articles and insufficient good editors. Perhaps we should suggest that the person involved call attention to the need for improvement on the relevant project talk page, with at most a bare minimum of details or a key reference, and if the subject is of interest, someone will follow up--follow up in the usual way a volunteer fixes an article. Despite what I said earlier, I will sometimes want to do that in areas of truly special interest to me, or when I wanted to learn about the subject, articles which I would have wanted to improve had I come across them by myself, or happened upon a source which I thought should be in Wikipedia , which is and will remain the usual way I notice the need for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What I suggest we need to do is to tell the coi user to make a proposed replacement of the necessary part or entirety of the text, and we will either accept it, modify it if its simple enough to make the modifications, or reject it, and that will be the end of it. We cannot take the time to teach each individual coi editor what proper editing is. I think this is beyond reasonable, and would propose that this be added to the COI and Edit Request instructions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Sandstein 10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think DGG highlights an important issue when he says If you are noteworthy enough for the changes to be important, someone uninvolved will notice. I've responded to edit requests, but I mostly work on the black hat side of things; working on sockfarms like Yoodaba, VentureKit, Jaktheladz has led me to look at the histories of hundreds of company pages. What's striking about many of them is that they're often relatively high-traffic click-wise, but attract very few legitimate editors; in a large number of cases, the overwhelming majority of people who edit the pages are Wikipedians on AWB sprees, bots, confirmed accounts of large sockfarms, SPA throwaways that edit the company article once and then disappear and suspicious IPs that never edit anything else and often geolocate suspiciously close to company headquarters. In many cases, I'd put money on the fact that 80+% of the edits involve some sort of COI. Many of the edits are harmless in the sense that they're not overtly promotional – though many are – but in sum, this leads to many of those pages being of very little encyclopaedic value.

The reason that so many of our low-ish profile company pages read like the "milestones" bullet-points on company websites is because that's precisely what they're based on: Someone from marketing writes an article that re-hashes their "about us" PR material and over subsequent years, the interns get called in to "update" the "company's Wikipedia profile". When someone finally notices and slaps the page with an incriminating maintenance tag, the more competent marketing socks get hired to clean the articles up a little.

On the flip side, UPE on high-profile pages that attract many legitimate editors often turns out to be less problematic because the changes get reverted, toned down, or overwritten fairly quickly. I think it's an important consideration to make that the fact that a company meets NCORP doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually going to attract legitimate editors – though granted, many of the pages I'm talking about were written when AfC wasn't yet a thing and standards for inclusion were generally lower.

I believe that this ties in with the reason we have so many edit requests in the first place: Sure, part of it is that the work can be tedious, but another important aspect is that there are very few editors actually interested in writing about companies on their own (or at least doing so regularly), and hence many company pages are indeed outdated and unattended – as a result, we get people who take matters into their own hands and just edit without disclosure, and a ballooning edit request backlog that's not a very attractive thing for most editors to be working on. Blablubbs|talk 14:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled on a small (50 employee) company the other day because someone had added it as an important industry in a US county article. I cleaned it up some, but available sources, beyond the company website and press releases, are rather thin. The few other articles about corporations that are on my watch list are also poorly sourced and written, but are not high on my list of things to work on. There is one where I recently had to clean out some attacks on the company's owner. I can only guess how many such articles are not being watched by active editors. - Donald Albury 16:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

My experience has been similar to Ymblanter's. I tried doing this and found it took an extraordinary amount of time to clear up the oldest requests even if they were simple 1 sentence level requests. xeno's solution of just saying "they can ignore us" is unsatisifying because if it's hard to deal with something as an edit request, it's going to be even harder to deal with it when it's been in an article and subject to Circular referencing. DGG's solution feels the best of the bunch, though I wonder what the community's reaction would be to rejecting something simply because it was too burdensome to check. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with what Blablubbs and Wugapodes (who was quoting DGG) have said. I think we need to refine/reform the process to facilitate the speedy implementation of COI/paid edits, because the longer the backlog gets, the more COI editors will just implement the changes themselves.

Yes, it is frustrating, but I don't believe that banning paid editing is the solution. If paid editors's sole purpose is to get their company a page on Wikipedia (or edit said page) what's stopping them from doing so even if paid editing is banned? Most of them don't care about staying as an editor, and I can't think of another incentive for them to refrain from PE. Or worse, they hire a paid editing company (many if not most of whom are UPEs) to do the dirty work for them. At least with (declared) PE being allowed we have some sort of grip idea on what is actually happening on that front. Banning it would likely just move the whole thing underground, with little reduction to the volume of it occurring. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dealing properly with low-attention articles has been a problem since I joined in 2006, but for some routine updates, I think there is a technical solution. I've proposed it before, as have others, and some parts have been implemented: a greater use of automatic updates, using wikidata as an intermediate. We should be able to automatically update financials and ceos of public companies and charities, and possible much other numerical data. Updating smaller businesses will be a real problem--there are some very expensive commercial service, but most of this is not public information in any form we can use. (which also means, that even if they ask, it can be difficult for them to document with a RS). We can do similarly with colleges, and governmental bodies. We could obviously do it in sports and music, but there are enough volunteers lookingfor something to do here. I admit I'm not sure how much of this is already being done. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• As far as administrators go on the edit-requests, there are currently only 9 requests that require admins, and that is including template-editor edits. Administrators do a very good job managing the backlog that requires admins on ER's. As far as the unprotected ER system - the immediate need is for editors to work it, but it is far from the largest backlog (see Category:Wikipedia backlog) that doesn't require admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi Protection request.

This page Turkish occupation of northern Syria has been seeing an influx of IP's adding text stating that Al-Monitor is not reliable. The IP's 1 2 3 are obvious socks, all come from the same location on the coast of Saudi Arabia, all have the exact same edits and edit history. I would like to request a semi-protection on the page for a temporary amount of time for this, I think this slow the tide of socking. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Des Vallee Make the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  // Timothy :: talk  20:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue Thanks, didn't know that was the place. Des Vallee (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, RfPP is the place to go. The alternating IPs is not socking on the face of it, but an IP user on a dynamically allocated IP (they are all the same ISP).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Jonas Tomalty by user user:Jonastomalty

User continuing to make edits to page despite being warned on 25 August 2020 and has failed to disclose any COI or answer the warning. User is making edits such as WP:W2W, WP:PUFFERY, AND WP:REFSPAM. User has been issued a second warning, but due to the severity the undersigned believes that some sort of administrative sanction is warranted at this time. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, this is more of an Incident than it is AN fare. Anyway, indef p-block from the mainspace bio page. El_C 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonas Tomalty

Regarding the "Jonas Tomalty" page: Jonas Tomalty here. First of all my apologies. I wasn’t aware that I could not simply add links to my own profile. I in no way intended to go outside of the Wikipedia guidelines and disturb the process. I had no intention of trying to financially gain from any of these citations either. As an established artist of 25 years it is very important for me to have a reliable Wikipedia page as a primary source for fans and media. As you can see from my username I was not trying to be sneaky or hide my identity. I am Jonas Tomalty. I will permanently refrain from making any edits or contributions to my own page from now on. In return I ask you please remove all of these flags from my page so that established and reliable Wikipedia editors can freely contribute and so that when someone opens my page it comes across as completely legitimate. I thank you for taking my appeal into consideration.

Jonastomalty (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonastomalty, not sure you're in the right place. The article talk page is the place to discuss the potential removal of maintenance tags. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that this message was also refactored to my talk page. I've responded on the user's talk page with some advise on how to proceed. El_C 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

Please read this article

13.March.2019 Addressing the grand Sadat gathering at the presidential palace (Arg), president M. Ashraf Ghani said that on Wednesday he will issue a decree on the inclusion of Sadat ethnic group in new electronic national identity card (e-NIC). President Ghani is expected to issue a decree on writing Sadat as an ethnicity in the e-NIC.

15.March.2019 President Ashraf Ghani has decreed mentioning ‘Sadat tribe’ in the electronic national identity.

All this content has a credible source, even on the website of the President of Afghanistan in Persian there is a video of a speech on this subject, but unfortunately it is deleted by Wikipedia users, I ask Wikipedia administrators to follow this whole issue and protect this page

This material has also been published on the website of the President of Afghanistan

Ashraf Ghani's speech video Persian language news agencies such as BBC Farsi, Tolo News, Ariana News, covered this news in the media.

Sadat, Sayyid, Sadat (disambiguation) The content mentioned in these articles has also been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sayyed.mt: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia. If I'm reading this right, it is a cpntent dispute. The admin's noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. You should discuss the matter on the talk pages of relevant article(s), seeking CONSENSUS. If an impasse is reached, please follow the dispute resolution processes. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Please help me! I talked to the user Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs) and he started deleting the content again for the reasons I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The issue was resolved and the dispute ended. Sayyed.mt (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyberbot edits

This one was not ok (and I do not immediately even know how to fix this). The operator has not been active for a week, so I am not sure whether it males sense to leave a talk page message (which I will probably do anyway). Anybody else has seen something like this recently?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have (hopefully) un-borked the page, for what it's worth. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: it looks like the last edit there was ok, possibly one-off glitch. Yes, you should leave the operator a talk message. I can't see us admins needing to do anything else about this right now (we're not going to block the bot over a single glitch on a project page); if it keeps breaking the page and the operator is unresponsive though please let use know (WP:BOTN is a good venue). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, my point was to see centrally whether there are more glitches. Blocking the bot over one edit is not reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this has come up before, and I feel like it's something to do with either a formatting, edit conflict, or timing error on the part of the bot. I do agree that as a one-off edit it's nothing to get hung up on. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a one-off incident. I reported this to Cyberpower678 last month and received no response. -FASTILY 21:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Unban request for Bigshowandkane64

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.

---

Bigshowandkane64 is banned by community consensus, with a substantial number of suspected and confirmed sockpuppet accounts, visible at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bigshowandkane64 and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bigshowandkane64. The SPI case is visible at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64/Archive and shows no entries after 19 March 2018. Note that there's been ban evasion as an IP address, over at User_talk:JBW#Apology_message, and SQL indicates there's been ban evasion using an account, since that time, but this is disputed by Bigshowandkane64. This user is requesting their ban be lifted, so I am copying over their appeal from their talk page.

I know it's been eight years since I last used this account, I was wondering if I could have one more final chance to edit on Wikipedia again. I wrote and apology talk page message to JBW on his talk page and he was able to restore my talk page access again. He told me to post here instead of his talk page, which I will gladly accept to do. Anyways, I sincerely apologize for my past behavior on this site eight years ago, I apologize to all the admins for cursing and swearing at them in the past, especially in my edit summaries when I use to edit articles. I know what I did before was wrong, I just didn't know better back then and I was very young then. I have reed the entire policy and I will be looking forward into changing my ways again when I edit the site, I will not create anymore sock puppet accounts like I did before in the past, I promise not to argue or edit war against users when I edit again. If an edit war starts to happen, I will ALWAYS take the issuse to the talk page instead of arguing with someone. This time, I am gonna be very cautious when I edit again. I will be very carful to not let the same mistake happen again like it did eight years ago. Please forgive me, I am being very apologetic to you all and I will show you guys that I am gonna follow the policy when I edit again. It's ok if this unblock request gets declined again, I just wanted to let every admin on here know that I am very, very, VERY, sorry. I swear, I have not used another account to edit articles for the past three years, as you mention. Since March 2018, I have NOT, I repeat, I have NOT created another account since then. SQL is wrongfully accusing me of another IP Address user, because I don't remember doing all that to other users, that is 100% not true. Plus, I haven't even invaded a block since 2018, I only used an IP Address to write an Apology message to JBW, that's all. Like I said before, I will be changing my ways again when I start editing articles again. I'm letting you all know that I sincerely apologize for my mistakes in the past eight years ago. But I am telling you, I am being wrongfully accused of another IP Address user. Plus, I seriously don't remember creating another account to invade my block before recently. Again, like I said, it's ok if this request gets declined. I'm just letting everyone know I'm sorry about my mistakes eight years ago.

I take no position on whether or not they've evaded their block using an account, and take no position at this time on whether or not their ban should be lifted. What does the community think? --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user was originally banned in Archive265. --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of rehabilitation is being open and honest about the past. If he cannot recall fairly recent socking, then I don't think he's changed. That is then a dishonest remark. --Heymid (contribs) 13:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unban. Bluntly stated, I do not believe this user. I don't know if they can't change or if they won't change. IMO that distinction is irrelevant at this point. Tiderolls 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Snow close, strong oppose. Over at User talk:Bigshowandkane64, they admitted to evading their block a few minutes ago with this edit and this edit. I'm therefore pretty sure SQL was right when they noted other instances of evasion, too. Given the ongoing evasion, I see absolutely no chance this unban request will be granted. Bigshowandkane64, you should go at least six months with zero edits before your next attempt to be unbanned. At that point, sign in to your account and use your talk page or, if your access has been revoked, use WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per talk page - I'm not quite sure how they could accidentally edit. They knew they were banned, so why would they be pressing "edit" anyway? Can't see any reason they would lose their TP access, but SO reset would be the standard response. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've emailed Yamla the evidence that Bigshowandkane64 was socking recently, so that they may investigate it independently. I stand by my assertion that they were socking at the very same time that they were leaving the 'apology message' at JBW's talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. FWIW, I've edited not logged in and not realized the software had logged me out. But if they edit edother than their talk page, they should have known that would not have happened. @SQL: I'm not a checkuser (else I'd have access to the logs). Is there anything you can email me. I've signed WMF confidentiality agreement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is somewhere between  Highly likely and  Confirmed to SuperMariokart9876. I'm going with confirmed, in this case, based on what I see in the technical evidence. I've reblocked and tagged. So, block evasion while logged out, alongside setting up an account and editing with that. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup. This user isn't coming out as trustworthy. Part of becoming unblocked and showing change is to abide by policies, in this case WP:SOCK. With their ban evasion they show no intention of behaving appropriately here. The fact that they could press the edit button without impediment while logged out isn't an excuse. If you know you're banned, you know you aren't allowed to edit under any circumstances. Seems more likely that the user deliberately logged out so they could edit. --Heymid (contribs) 17:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Halifax Transit long-term vandal

Previous discussion here. Various IPs have been adding false information to Halifax Transit and related articles for some time, including a fake list of future transit routes under the heading "Future Transit System". The page was protected in the past because of this. They do not respond to attempts to engage, but with strange and combative edit summaries ([5], [6]). 156.57.180.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) emerged in January adding the same content. Unfortunately they are still active, adding strange/uncited information to other Halifax Transit-related articles. Ben MacLeod (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal by Debresser

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.

---

Debresser has requested that an appeal of a two-week block for a topic ban violation imposed by Cullen328 be copied here for review. Debresser's appeal is accordingly copied below for discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I posted at WP:ANI in violation of my topic ban not on purpose, but because I hadn't checked. Had I checked the ban notification, as I have just now, I would have seen that it includes not only articles and article talkpage but also all other discussions.

In addition, I agree with those editors at WP:ANI who feel that even though technically the blocking editor was within their rights to block me, it would have made sense to give me a change to reply. If given the chance, I would likely have struck the comment that violated my ban. Also I agree with those editors there who feel that a two-week block is a bit heavy handed, since it is not as though I said anything that hadn't been said there by others before me.

In short, if my block could be revoked, I'd appreciate it.

• Blocking admin has been notified: [7]
• Unblock if he says he will strike the violation, not that he likely would have. nableezy - 19:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• And since he's now said he will, unblock. Preventative and not punitive and all that jazz. I think he is now well aware of the scope of the ban and we can continue on our merry way. nableezy - 00:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• It rather beggars belief that a lawyer would not check the terms of his topic ban, but if the target of the breach agrees that he should be unblocked if he strikes the violation, then who am I to disagree? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would uphold the block. Debresser was topic banned from the area due to his wikilawyering. This is just an extension of it and an attempt to fly as close to the sun as possible. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• It was a clear violation. The correct course of action would of been to give them a chance to correct themselves given this was the first violation. That was not done which is unfortunate. Next is the issue of block length, two weeks for a first violation with no time to self revert is rather ridiculous if I'm honest. What is rather disappointing is right after blocking Cullen decided it would be a good idea to vote in the same thread opposing Debresser. Bad optics or not, it was a dumb idea. It just looks like a poorly thought out situation all around and I think apologies are in order all around. PackMecEng (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • PackMecEng, you are describing the sequence of events incorrectly. I opposed a topic ban on Nableezy at 00:30 or 00:31. I had not edited for a few hours, and before making that comment, I was researching the situation, which had nothing to do with Debresser. I was unaware that Debresser had even commented. After I posted my comment, I skimmed other recent comments, noticed Debresser's comment, reviewed their topic ban and their lengthy block log, and at that point decided to block. Describing this as Debresser's first violation does not seem accurate to me. Debresser has had five previous arbitration enforcement blocks, including one for a topic ban violation on August 2, 2017, and a dozen other assorted blocks. I do not understand how taking a position on an issue that did not involve Debresser in any way disqualified me from dealing with his topic ban violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, I do not understand how taking a position on an issue that did not involve Debresser in any way disqualified me from dealing with his topic ban violation. That is really the problem isn't it. If you read over my comment no where did I say it disqualified you. I said Bad optics or not, it was a dumb idea. You seem to be taking issue with this from a technical standpoint which is fine, but means you are completely missing the point myself and others have brought up. Which was it is not a bright idea. Just because you can does not mean you should. Lets avoid playing "who can piss closest to the electric fence" okay? PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I am in complete and total disagreement with your assessment of the situation, PackMecEng, and your colorful language is not helpful, as I see the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Cullen328, Well I am in complete and total disagreement with your assessment. So agree to disagree? Also the language is designed to punctuate the shortcomings with your ideals in this situation and for just general fun. PackMecEng (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Perhaps a focus on the actual facts rather than fun would lead to a better outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        Why not both? We have fun and you learn something. Win win. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        PackMecEng, I see nothing wrong with the optics here, but if it makes you feel better imagine it's my name in the log and not Cullen's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        HJ Mitchell, Ah yes, perfect! Why didn't I do that from the start? Oh, yeah because that is silly and makes no difference to the issue at hand. I mean if you couldn't see that I suppose that would be why you saw nothing wrong with the optics huh? PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a blatantly obvious topic ban violation and any admin who saw it can and should have taken action on it. And an admin voicing an opinion on a topic ban is an administrative action that very much does not make them involved in either a personal dispute or in a topic area. You can make your argument for whether or not Debresser should be unblocked, but the idea that the initial block was in any way improper or had bad optics is a non-starter. nableezy - 02:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the surface, this seems like a permissible block that's at the harsher end of admin discretion and I might have been inclined to say Debresser should have been given the chance to strike his comment or that the block should be reduced to time served. However, looking at Debresser's block log, this is clearly not an isolated incident and the block duration is proportionate given that we usually escalate durations for recidivism. Then I saw that the offending comment was actually advocating for topic-banning another editor from the very same area they've just been topic-banned from; even if they didn't realise that it was covered by their topic ban (which they should have; they've been around long enough to know what a standard topic ban look like and what its purpose is—namely to force an editor to disengage with a subject area), they knew this wasn't disengaging from the Israel-Palestine area in the spirit of the topic ban. For that reason I endorse the block. I would very much like to see Debresser back to being productive (away from ARBPIA) but neither they nor Wikipedia will come to any great harm if they have to sit in the sin bin for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• endorse per Mr. Mitchell. — Ched (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems like Debresser is aware of why they were blocked and admitted they had a lapse in judgment. If we give Debresser the benefit of the doubt that they would have complied with the revert request had they seen it, then one might as well consider unblocking them as long as admins are convinced it won't happen again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real view on whether Debresser should be unblocked, but seriously, did they not consider that commenting on a WP:ARBPIA topic ban discussion when you're topic banned from WP:ARBPIA might just be a violation of that TBan? Black Kite (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any early unblock. As an editor who has a tendency to ignore talk page message for days or weeks, then not read them well even when I check them, I initially planned to support an unblock. But that was because I thought this was a very recently impose ban by an editor still unfamiliar with the details. Seeing that it was imposed nearly 2 months ago [8], this thinking goes out the window. Sorry but it's the onus is on you to learn the details of any sanction imposed. 2 months is more than enough time for you to learn and to check if you're unsure. (Even if I had done this myself, I'd like to think I'd recognise it was a fair response and my own stupidity was to blame to no appeal.) Yes it the additional burden may suck, but as always, I'm going to assume the topic ban was fair since this isn't a request to overturn it so expecting you to do that the additional burden is reasonable and gets little sympathy from me. Further, this isn't an editor inexperienced with restrictions, as the block log shows. Debresser has had more than enough time to learn they need to get serious with sanctions. The block log also suggests 2 weeks is more than justified. Again, while maybe the blocks were't over this particular topic ban, they do indicate a problem with Debresser not following policy and sanctions. Personal or site-wide, doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Meant to say "recently imposed ban on an editor still unfamiliar with the details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, they could have been given the opportunity to strike the comment, but jeesh they've been here long enough to know better. Could have gone either way. But the ruling on the field should stand: admin discretion. I don't believe time served or a shortened length applies; they erred, they deal with it. 2 weeks is not at all out of the realm of appropriate. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm glad Debresser is back editing Wikipedia, because they announced that they were done with the project after I imposed this ARBPIA topic ban which was also accompanied by a 2-week block. So, that's good news. Nevertheless, something's got to give. Debresser saying they didn't read the ban message is a supremely poor defense, especially considering all it said was (in full): You are indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed. In what world does one devote whole paragraphs to discussing a ban whose highlighted one-line statement isn't reviewed? No, that's too weird. Also endorse Cullen's uninvolved status in imposing the sanction. I would have gone with a month had I seen it first (was pinged to the violation, but seen it after the fact), so in that sense, Debresser got a lucky break there. El_C 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse if this was a first-time violation by someone who had little experience of editing restrictions then an unblock would be reasonable. However Debresser has a long block log including many prior blocks for arbitration enforcement, including a block for gaming the system from two months ago. Debresser should know how editing restrictions work by now, this restriction is clearly stated and uncomplicated, and the edit in question certainly wasn't in keeping with the spirit of the ban, as HJ Mitchell notes. Hut 8.5 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block/Oppose unblock With Debresser's history, this was remarkably lenient under the circumstances. They know how bans work. They know perfectly what the exceptions are. Personally I think given the comments above we should be talking about increasing it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/Oppose unblock per HJ Mitchell, et al. The basis of the appeal seems frivolous to me and ill-founded, Alright, silly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/oppose unblock. Debresser's explanation that they didn't read the talk page message from January 21 is simply not credible. Debresser commented several times in the talk page discussion regarding the notification about that topic ban, User talk:Debresser#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, on January 21 and January 29. Pleading ignorance about the content of the topic ban now does not hold water. Given Debresser's long block history and long history of arbitration enforcement sanctions and their violations, a two week block in this instance was rather lenient. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse the block/oppose unblock per Nil Einne's comments. NightWolf¹²²³ 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Debresser. Just a word of advice, perhaps unwelcome coming from me. Whatever one's personal feelings, whatever injustices one might think wrought by a sanction, the best approach is to wear the penalty, not remonstrate with arbs or the system. In the hightide of my banning days, I just sat them out - from permaban, to a normal 1 to 3 month ostracism to porridge. That length was normal in the good old days. Two weeks flies by, and it will go to your credit if you just sit this brief one out. And do come back.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse the block he was blocked for two weeks very recently for similar actions, this block should have been increased, he is lucky it is only two weeks again. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the block/Oppose unblock per HJ Mitchell - I guess they've learned the hard way that the topic ban also applies to AN. Striking is pointless as the damage has already been done - You live and you learn and anyway 2 weeks is nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Storm598

Storm598 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been here for three months, and in that short time has made 815 edits and accumulated a talk page full of warnings and disputes. They have been blocked once. Looking down their contributions page, a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, and I have found more which were in need of reverting, which I have done. There remain others in topic areas I'm not familiar with, so I'd like to suggest that other editors take a look at their contributions and make whatever corrections or reversions are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unfair. It is a completely different matter that there have been frequent disputes and that editing is wrong. If you edit the original controversial subject mainly, editorial disputes will naturally arise. However, in the future, unless I bring the source first, I will do as little dispute editing as possible.--Storm598 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 has now posted on their user page: "I have a lot of headaches, so I won't edit the English Wikipedia for a while. (at least one month)" I still believe that an informal investigation of their editing would be worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Headaches are a common recurring symptom of ANI flu.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Now they've posted "retired", that the account is "deprecated" and "I don't want to open a new account for a while." If they have an account in (at this moment) good standing, under what policy would they be allowed to make a new account? Something seems fishy here -- the moment some attention is given to a 3 month old account, it gives up the ghost. What are they concerned about being found out about the account? Is a checkuser needed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't under any sanction, but they are under discussion at a admin noticeboard so retiring this account and starting a new one would not be permitted under WP:CLEANSTART. P-K3 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Considering this discussion on Talk:California Democratic Party and some other edits that they've made today, I'm very close to asking for an AP2 TB for Storm598. Their edits are badly informed, and most of them have been reverted by miself and others. I'll wait to see if they take my suggestion to avoid that topic area or not, and will return with additional evidence if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is very unfair. I participated in Talk and didn't insist on editing until the end.--Storm598 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Participating in the discussion is not the issue here, it's the fact that in your participation, you made it quote clear that your understanding of American politics is very poor, and that your sources of information are not appropriate or reliable. For instance, on Blue Dog Democrat, you insisted on a citation for adding "Social conservatism" to their ideology in the infobox, when anyone who knows anything about American politics knows that this is the case. You really don;t have a clue about the subject, and yet you feel free to edit substantially in the area, even though many of your edits have been reverted. In my judgment, you simply do not have the competence needed to edit in the AP2 subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Check out the history of the Blue Dog Coalition document. (r1004387792 → r1004930554) Rather, I have clearly improved what had been misrepresented as "Fiscal responsibility" for more than a few years as "Fiscal conservatism". If I hadn't improved this, would you have been able to add a "Social conservatism"? I just think that Blue Dogs are financial conservatism, not social conservatism. I know enough about American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think that is a very good indication that you do not know enough about American politics to be editing in that topic area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's also of concern to me that Storm598, even as an editor of only 3 days tenure, was creating brand new categories without discussion and then populating them, somethionig that they continue to do. [9]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken insulted me with false information in the Law and Justice article Talk. # I think this discussion is also cherry picking for Beyond My Ken to penalize me for editing Wikipedia.--Storm598 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote was "The consensus in the discussion above is crystal clear, "far-right" is well-supported, and there are no grounds for re-opening the discussion. It appears to me that Storm598 is being disruptive as the result of a personal POV." This was after you attempted to open a new thread about whether the Law and Justice party of Poland was "right-wing" or not, when you had just opened a previous discussion days earlier and comments were running against you in it. That was unnecessary and disruptive, and your persistence seemed to me to be an indication that you have a personal ideological stake in the "correct" decision being made -- otherwise why not simply let the discussion play out and see what happened? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As for "cherry picking", I have invited other editors to look at the totality of your editing for themselves. When a significant portion of an editor's contributions have been reverted by other editors, that's a pretty good indication that their editing is not up to snuff, which I would like other editors to investigate for themselves. The examples I have posted here are simply examples of some of the worst of your problematic editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My editing was controversial, but I never took the POV's view at all. Rather, if you carefully look at the history of all the documents I edited, it is clear that you did "cherry picking." #, # → #, # → # think what Beyond My Ken is doing to me is undermining me. According to Beyond My Ken, it is no different from saying that many Wikipedia users have a POV perspective. I am entitled to edit American political articles.--Storm598 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not if your ignorance causes your editing to be disruptive. An editor such as myself shouldn't have to check over every article you added to the category you created Category:Proto-feminists to see if the article should properly be in that category, and find that the vast majority of them -- added by you -- shouldn't have been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The timing of Proto-feminism is also understood to be controversial in academia. I believe that female activists of the era before the term feminism was born should also be considered Proto-feminists. Because during the French Revolution, the term "feminism" did not exist. But since I'm not as stubborn as you think I am, I'm not going to undo the articles that removed Category:Proto-feminists.--Storm598 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You know the complete opposite. Check the history of the document. PiS had been written "Right-wing" for quite a long time, and I tried to change it to "Far-right".--Storm598 (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake, I typed the wrong thing. Sue me. But you were told that "right-wing" is well-supported. Where, exactly, did I say that your personal PoV was rightist? Editing from a personal PoV is bad no matter what that PoV is, because it has a tendency to skew the neutrality of your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the PiS document was agreed "Right-wing" by public opinion before I created this account. # That's why I held a second debate.--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying "document". Wikipedia has "articles", not "documents". And "right-wing" wasn't determined by "public opinion", it was determined by WP:CONSENSUS, which is central to Wikipedia's editing process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AP2 topic ban

• I think it'd be better to do it like this. From now on, I will not edit articles related to American politics for a month. And after that, I will be careful not to collide and edit it more flexibly. Why don't you decide after that?

Of course, I don't think I'm ignorant of American politics, and I think Beyond My Ken is undermining me, but I think my editing has been a little aggressive lately.--Storm598 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that a topic ban from AP2 is appropriate, to the extent that you're voluntarily going to adhere to one for a month, then I think there's a prima facie case for a non-voluntary AP2 TBan to be imposed by an admin for whatever period of time they think is appropriate. (One month is an unusually short period of time for a topic ban. A year with the right to appeal after 6 months is more typical.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your AP2 topic ban request is very unfair. But I don't want to continue this conflict with you, so I mean I won't edit AP2 for a while. I fully understand U.S. politics, and I have not done anything wrong to deserve the AP2 topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with AP2 topic ban. It's just that I fully understand American politics, but it's not my main contribution, so I mean that I will avoid editing AP2 documents for more than a month. This is purely voluntary and does not require any ban.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly, I don't think there's any reason for me to get 'AP2 topic ban'. But just that I won't edit the AP2 document if possible for a while. Do you understand?

This just means that I have lost interest in contributing to American political documents, and there is no reason why I should be banished in American politics.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there's a reason: you don't know much about it, but you think that you do. That's much more potentially dangerous to the quality of our product then the person who knows nothing, and, knowing that they know nothing, stays away from the topic area. With you, someone is going to have to check every edit you make to make sure that you're not transferring the incorrect information you're getting from "Korea's biggest blog" to our articles. That's why you need to be AP2 topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, let's turn it down a notch. BMK, I think you've made your point, there's no need to make this about Storm598's level of knowledge at this point. What's important here is whether Storm598 is able to abide by verifiability policy and edit constructively. To that extent, I'm concerned by the discussion at Talk:California Democratic Party, specifically here, where they appear to be advocating for content changes entirely based on their own original opinions and arguments, and here where they make an argument about changing the political ideology classification based on the state of Korean Wikipedia. Storm598, you need to review our policy regarding original research. If you do not abide by it, it will result in restrictions on your editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I understood what you said. In the future, we may edit American political documents occasionally, but we will be careful not to violate the verifiability policy.--Storm598 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Storm598's editing of AP2 articles is a problem, it's not the only problem. For instance, Storm598 has been removing the Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea from numerous articles, many of which are obviously appropriate targets for it. Their edits have been reverted not just by me, but by other editors as well, at least one of which has become so fed by with Storm598's behavior, that he refuses to discuss with them on their onw talk page insisting -- as I do -- that such discussions must take place only on article talk pages. [10].

The more I dig into Storm598's edits, the more problems I find.

At several points in this discussion Storm598 has said that their editing had recently become "too aggressive", or words to that effect, but I think this had been the state of Storm598's editing from the very beginning. This is an editor who created their account on 8 December 2020, [11], and less then three days later began creating political categories and populating them, and a few days letter was moving articles [12], based on their own perceptions of Taiwanese politics. (They moved Liberalism and progressivism in Taiwan to Progressivism in Taiwan.) That is very aggressive behavior from a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from Jang Jun-ha's problem, is there a policy that new users should not create political categories? And did I make a 'POV' contribution to Taiwanese politics?--Storm598 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

U.S. political documents say they will be careful not to violate verifiability policies. Why are you leading me to another problem? I don't want to cause any more disputes with you.--Storm598 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your editing is inherently causing disruption. And, no, there is no policy that new users should not create new categories -- although there probably should be -- but if, in the fullness of time, your editing is called into question, then your earlier very aggressive choice to begin by doing things that most edtiors don't get to for quite a while raises serious questions about both your judgment and your provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There appear to be some WP:CIR issues here that go beyond the scope of an AP2 topic ban, based on both a limited sampling of their contributions and their comments here, beyond simple linguistic difficulties (of which I'm assuming their use of "we" was an example, rather than being indicative of a shared account). Their understanding of basic policy seems inadequate for some of the edits that they're making. I'd like some confirmation that they have a basic grasp of our verifiability, weight, and reliable sourcing requirements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer this. However, I will be more careful in editing English Wikipedia in the future. I have often revealed reliable sources when adding new content, but for the time being, I will refrain from controversial edits and show you that I have the basic ability to edit WP.--Storm598 (talk)

Storm598, that's a good start, and I'd oppose blocking on those grounds. I still think that perhaps a time-limited topic ban from American Politics might be good for you, as per what Elijahandskip said. By "time-limited", I mean something of a limited duration, that's just meant to keep you away from a topic area you're passionate about for a little bit. We're all continually learning how to be better editors here, even the most experienced users. Would you agree to a voluntary time-limited topic ban from the AP2 area, so you can focus on other articles, and demonstrate your competency? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment to Storm598. So I am an outside editor who doesn’t know too much about the events that took place. Storm598, a T-Ban can be very useful. From a brief read, it appears this is similar to what I thought for a long time. I am actually currently under T-Ban on Post-1992 US politics for 6 months, and I am also the editor who started a major (60k+ byte) US politics article back in October as well as the editor who started a 55 page long Rfc (politics related). My T-Ban started on March 2, and sense then, I have felt kind of good. From the look of the discussion, you will have a T-Ban, so prepare for it and don’t bury yourself any more than you have too. Right now would be an idea time to just walk away from the discussion and accept the discussion once it is finished. If you do that, you will probably help yourself in the long run. Also, since you seem to be similar to how I thought even as little as a week ago, feel free to message me on my talk page. I would be happy to mentor you and help you become a better Wikipedia editor. Hopefully this helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beyond My Ken, just one thing--this isn't Facebook. I see your opponent deflecting in one way after another, like in that "Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" discussion on their talk page, but please don't feel the need to respond to every little twist and turn--especially not here. You know, from experience, that the longer an ANI thread gets the less likely it is to get resolved. Let the community handle it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies OK, I'll defer to the advice from you and Rosguil and back off, looking for the community to deal with Storm598's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban per BMK et al. Editors above will know that it is not my wont to support restrictions which exclude others from editing Wikipedia. But, having just been notified of changes to a large number of articles on my watchlist, which clearly indicate that Storm598 doesn't get the points above, but has simply moved their focus away from American politics, I must support not only a topic ban from AP2; and also from Categories and/or from East Asian politics (broadly construed). I would also Support an indef block per CIR. The editor was warned about nesting categories on 20 December 2020, and again on 9 March 2021, but appears not have gotten the message. They continue to add new sub-categories[13] which they then use to categorise articles under the parent, without sourcing in the article itself. This is clear POV pushing, and a clear failure to get it. They were advised above by Symmachus Auxiliarus to be careful, and agreed to not make controversial edits. Yet here we are. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an excessive measure. When it comes to Asian politics, I just created categories for convenience. If that's a problem, I won't create any more categories for the time being.--Storm598 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And the Shōwa Statism category was not intended for POV, but for convenience to readers who see Wikipedia. However, if this is a problem within Wikipedia, I will not use this Shōwa Statism category anymore.--Storm598 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the documents I used in the "Category:Shōwa Statism" were written in the "Statism in Shōwa Japan". Kōdōha and Tōseiha were also political factions in the Japanese Army. I didn't do POV editing. However, I will no longer create categories after this point in order not to be unfairly ban.--Storm598 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like an over-eager new user rather than a bad-faith editor. I agree with them that having Centrism, Conservatism, Modern liberalism, and Progressivism for various US state Democratic Party ideologies is a bit silly. That said, until they are more experienced, what they need to do is to stop making mass changes without first getting consensus. I'm guessing this is an East Asian editor; until they are more experienced they may be better off avoiding American Politics completely (as that is always contentions on-wiki). 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The editor has said in a number of places that they are South Korean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

3 Month Block

It's ridiculous to block indefinitely. I have never made a POV contribution in East Asian political documents.

But if my editing is a problem, I'll agree to block my account for less than a year. Because on second thought, I think I have pushed my opinion a little too far or contributed a little bit POV in American political editing. But I'm not trying to edit the English Wikipedia maliciously. But I think I haven't mastered the rules and atmosphere of Wikipedia yet.

The reason why I brought up the 3-month Block out of the blue is to understand the atmosphere of English Wikipedia for 3 months. However, I still disagree with the arms cutoff on me or the ban on a particular topic.--Storm598 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a request for disciplinary action against me. It's to lead my daily life rather than disciplinary action. I don't want to get involved too deeply in this matter because I have something personal.--Storm598 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I will not edit Wikipedia very often anymore. However, I think it is too much to ban an excessive period of block or edit a particular topic.--Storm598 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Something urgent has come up right now, so I'll log-out for a while. (To be honest, I was hurt, and I don't want to aggravate my mental illness while watching the English Wikipedia for a while.) Apart from anything else, I've never edited Wikipedia maliciously. Nevertheless, I am asking for a three-month block to myself. Please do not block weapons or take ban measures on certain topics.--Storm598 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if I come back later, I will come back more mature. Please do not deprive me of my editing rights indefinitely or for too long....--Storm598 (talk)

Just in case anyone gets the wrong impression, Storm598 has not been blocked or sanctioned in any way. What they're calling a "block" amounts to them putting a "semi-retired" tag on their user page, along with the comment "I didn't stop my Wikipedia career. I might come back one day. But now I don't want to edit Wikipedia, and I'm thinking of doing something other than wiki for a while," plus the comments they've made here, which seem to indicate that they plan not to edit for 3 months. There is no sanction at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

74.133.15.132

74.133.15.132 needs an IP range block for continual spam edits. ɱ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ɱ, can you provide an example range or individual IP addresses that should be encompassed by the block? I'm afraid the proposed rangeblock would be huge, really huge, and pretty ineffective in terms of blocking many disruptive edits over time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with specifics; whatever you think is best, even if just for this single IP. ɱ (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Special:Contributions/74.133.15.132/24, I'd say Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I see three recent edits from this IP. One, from January, is vandalism, and the other two are at least arguably good faith. Where are you seeing the spam problems? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Paid edits reverted for ?

Last fall I started a discussion here when I was blocked from editing because I'm a disclosed paid editor. The "verdict" was then that paid editing is ok as far as the Wikipedia rules are followed. Last week I had edited Varma's Wikipedia article for nearly 3 hours, see diff when GSS reverted them saying "Multiple issues; addition of primary source, lack of inline citation and advertising. Please use the article talk page to request changes as per WP:COIEDIT)". So I guess GSS meant that I was using too many primary sources there? I explained the case on the talk page telling that only 1/8 sources I had used was company internal (the one being about their financial figures). No response. I also wrote to GSS's talk page too but still no response. I'm afraid of adding my edits back as someone might accuse me of edit war then but I don't think this is fair at all. I am following the rules as well as I can but if someone is against paid editing they can come and revert my edits any time they want without any proper feedback about what they think I'm doing wrong? Jjanhone (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:PAID says:

If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It does not matter whether you are paid directly by the client, or paid indirectly by an employer on behalf of the client. Editors who receive payment for their edits or actions on the English Wikipedia must comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia.

It says you must make this disclosure on your user page, on the article talk page, or in edit summaries. The WMF Terms of Use requires the same thing. I see no such disclosure on your user page, on Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company, or on any of your 81 edits to Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company. [14]. What am I missing? Where is your disclosure? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you think that the listing of all of your many clients on your user pages fulfills this requirement. I don't agree. Although the policy says you can make your disclosure on your user page, I believe the expectation is that it would not be hidden in a long list of names, but would be a clear and obvious disclosure. I'm not sure why paid editors are even given the user page option, the disclosure should really be on the article talk page, or on each and every edit summary.

I think the bottom line is this: circumstances make it necessary to allow paid editing, but the majority of Wikipedia editors, I believe, do not like paid editing because it undermines the voluntary nature of our project. We may be forced to allow it, but most of us have no inclination of making things any easier for paid editors. If we're going to have to allow it, then you have to make clear and obvious statements of conflicts of interest due to paid editing. I don't believe that you've done this -- in any case you certainly haven't done it to my satisfaction.

I'd like to know what other editors feel about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Did you not look at the top of the article talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sh*t. I missed it. Sorry. I did look, but I didn't see. My bad. My sentiments remain the same, although the specifics are obviously incorrect. Time to stop editing tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You're good. That template honestly needs a unique background color or something to make it stand out better. :) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Made some updates to {{Connected contributor (paid)}}, that's my contribution to this, now back to sleep. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 09:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. So do you think I was breaking some rules while editing the article? If I wasn't, can I add my edits back? Jjanhone (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: I think the statistics updates you made can be added back without issue. I think the section you added ("The roots of Varma") is problematic because your source is a primary source, not a secondary source, and relative to the entire article it may also be a neutral point of view issue. Please also read WP:PRIMARY, particularly Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I am troubled that GSS did not simply remove the portions that were likely at issue instead of just reverting your edits completely. Per the prior discussion you linked above: In my opinion, it's best to treat the "paid" angle as irrelevant and focus on the edits: if someone repeatedly violates WP:NPOV after warnings, they may be blocked for disruption related to the POV-pushing, without regard to their disclosed paid status. – Xeno, also what Swarm said at that prior discussion is still relevant here. GSS's edit summary pointed to the addition of primary sources (though they seem to believe primary sources are completely disallowed, which is not the case), lack of inline citations which is simply false looking at the material they reverted that you added, and advertising which is pretty vague but I suspect is referring to "The roots of Varma" section you added. They then implore you to use talk page requests per WP:COIEDIT, which COIEDIT does not require, it simply encourages. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Thank you! I added all back and hope to continue the discussion on Varma's talk page, not here. The source for roots of Varma is not primary but an independent book about Varma. The chapter may be too long (but it's still a small part of the book) now but let's shorten it together? Jjanhone (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus on the article talk page, you should not have "added it all back". Paid editors have a motivation to get their edits into an article which has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia and everything to do with improving their bottom line. If Jjanhone continues this behavior on Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company, I will propose that they be blocked from editing that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: *sigh* ... I did not say to add it back. Yes, you do not need to seek permission to make edits, you are only discouraged from doing so on articles where you are being compensated. WP:BOLD still applies to you. However, so does the way we work at Wikipedia overall in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You are presently at the discuss stage, re-adding the content identified as problematic ("The roots of Varma") prior to getting consensus is not acceptable. Please do tread carefully from now on, as I am inclined to support Beyond My Ken's proposal to block you from that article. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I added all back as you were thinking that the reference I've used is Varma internal while it is not. Otava has published a book and Varma has downloaded one chapter of the book on their web site which I linked so that people can read the chapter. But I hope we could continue the discussion on Varma's talk page.Jjanhone (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• For those with any interest in following-up on this discussion, there has been some forward motion on the article talk page (Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company#Roots of Varma) and additional comments there would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

create

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.

---

blank category sends me to article wizard, article wizard sends me here.

Please create Category:Last known speakers of a Native American language with

{{portal|language}}
[[Category:Last known speakers of a language]]

thanks. 71.223.52.67 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The correct page is WP:AFCRC; it also asks for a few pages that will be in the category. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Could someone revdel an edit please

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

---

This edit by TheTransportHub requires revdeleting as it is a word for word copyvio of the cited ref. Thanks Nightfury 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but please use a {{revdel}} request next time on the article itself. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks, wasn't aware of the template, will do in future. Nightfury 13:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

J-Man11 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, J-Man11 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § J-Man11 unblocked

J-Man11 was community banned. According to WP:UNBAN: "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee." What serious issues were there that overruled the community? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I cannot find where that happened, though I do remember that user name. I do feel the NOTHERE aspect should have been brought here, and said as much. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a 3X ban, see here and here. Blablubbs|talk 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Hailindians

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 revoke the talk page access of this user as they are using abusive language to me when I warn them. Please check it.TTP1233 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Remove TfM links infesting {{tl}}

Someone please remove the TfM link from {{Template link}} by setting |type= to disabled. This speaks louder than words:

Nardog (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse this request. @Athaenara: maybe you can look into this (or any other admin reading). It’ll take a few seconds to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Template:Tlu for whoever wondered what the heck this was about.) – Athaenara ✉ 23:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) [my comment added after Nardog posted {{Resolved mark}} below]

 Resolved by Primefac. Nardog (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Ethics & Personal attack by Goddard2000

In response to an argument (diff) about user's approach towards article's content and inability to give explanation to WP:OR in previous talk topic, user Goddard2000 decides to accuse me (diff) in attempting "to present them Nazi" and claims that they explained something to my "previous account which was banned".--IrelandCork (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User, IrelandCork YOU were the one that implied i was being anti-Kumyk, i dont appreciate these accusations so i told you not to try to present me as a Nazi to the admins. I dont understand why you are making several unnecessary reports that will lead to nothing. The admins on here aren't stupid they will see what i wrote.

--Goddard2000 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, they are not and will see. Also this is my first report on you, yet again ignoring WP:Ethics.--IrelandCork (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, as this altercation has occurred on my personal talk page [15] and I was asked by one of the users here to weigh in... here I will be doing just that.

1. . Both users should stop accusing each other of being anti-X.
2. . Anyone reading this should understand some of the relevant history. The Aukh region, AKA Akkia, is a border region currently administrated by Dagestan, which has historically had Chechen inhabitants, which were deported to Siberia/Kazakhstan in 1944 (Operation Lentil (Caucasus)), and other ethnic groups of Dagestan -- primarily Laks but also Avars and Kumyks -- moved into their homes. Some reconciliation has happened but disputes continue today. Additionally, like many other Chechen-inhabited areas, there was a period historically where the area was under the suzerainty/rule in some form of Kumyks -- it's a known aspect of Chechen history that lowland Chechens were ruled over by Kabardins and Kumyks at various points. Neither user likely agrees with my presentation of the history here, but it is the most NPOV summary I am capable of at the moment. When they call each other anti-Chechen or anti-Kumyk, that's the context, and it should be understood as such.
3. . I have interacted with Goddard2000 as well and while I don't always agree with him, it is not exactly correct to say he is always or even usually a disruptive editor. Have I disagreed with his bold actions, well yes. But I have to be fair here. My take is that he is generally here to clean up what he sees as incorrect info, the problem being that there is disagreement on what info/sources/etc are acceptable, and a lack of civility on both sides -- a phenomenon that has been growing on Caucasus topics lately, causing them to increasingly resemble the Balkan topic area. At least he tries though. Goddard2000 has also done edits which can uncontroversially be called improvements [[16]]. IrelandCork does not have a long editing history, so I can't say much.
4. . Goddard2000 is right that the edits he is disputing are disruptive. This one by KrakDuck removed sourced and apparently RS info [[17]]. It was reverted by Goddard, who was himself reverted by IrelandCork. Goddard seems to be in the right policy-wise here on this case. But not entirely, as he also removed info on the subjugation of local Chechens by Kumyks which was also sourced [[18]] as "literary vandalism", an unfortunate choice of words but, as I mentioned before, while we can and should check to make sure the source in question is RS, this is certainly not inherently "anti-Chechen" to mention. The page should probably incorporate both the info from Shikhaliev (removed by KrakDuck and IrelandCork) and that from Butskovsky, unless it is shown that one or both should not be considered RS.
5. . Now for socking, and accusations thereof. On my talk page, IrelandCork seems to insinuate that Goddard2000 is a likely sock of Lamberd or Zandxo. As I understand it Zandxo is in fact Reiner Gavriel. Meanwhile, Goddard2000 has an open case that KrakDuck is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arsenekoumyk of Arsenekoumyk, whom I have interacted with. While I have no idea who is or isn't who, there are a couple things that are worth mentioning...

-- 1) Who would sock as Goddard2000? This doesn't make sense -- neither chronologically, nor in terms of motive. The timeframe doesn't check out for Lamberd. Zandxo is now editing as Reiner Gavriel, and has no sanctions as far as I can see, so why couldn't he just edit using that account? Socking can get you banned, you'd need to be stupid or otherwise have a good motive, like already being banned.

-- 2) Regarding Goddard2000's case that KrakDuck is Arsen -- I have no idea, I'd lean towards "unlikely" just based on personality alone. But is KrakDuck a sock of someone? I believe the evidence strongly points to "yes" -- does this edit summary look like that of someone who is actually a newbie to edit warring on Wikipedia [[19]]? No. He is likely a sock.

Lastly, frankly, IrelandCork coming to my page and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about Goddard was unfortunate. If you think someone is a sock, you should just open an SPI. Hope this was helpful. --Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I must amend my statement. Upon inspection, Goddard2000 was completely right -- not only in restoring the sourced info deleted by KrakDuck, but also in the removal of text sourced to this clearly non-RS source here [[20]]. It is a historical military document, composed ages ago, and it shows, in ways that make Goddard's characterization of it... accurate. Like this racist slime, for instance -- Кумыки в душе хотя не менее прочих горских народов к разбою наклонны, но соседством и частым обращением с персиянами заимствовались некоторого образования, воздерживающего их производить сие ремесло явно; сим вместе, однакож, научились и [241] персидской хитрости и коварству, находя всегда способы к прикрытию своих измен. Вообще гораздо просвещеннее прочих горских народов. I think I'll leave that untranslated, but feel free to use Google or whatever Russian translator you want. Or you can just take my word that this is not something even resembling an RS.--Calthinus (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Firstly, I didn't mean to insinuate that Lamberd or Zandho are Gooddard2000. Secondly, I haven't accused anyone of being "anti" or "pro". I only pointed out that Goddard and others tried to misrepresent the same sources in a certain way, which is WP:OR. I also think that "Sala-Uzden" part is most likely WP:OR on both sides, but unfortunately I didn't see that claim from either side. Which, in turn, makes me think that that is all "political". Thirdly, your first point about the history is right and I think that edits in Aukh also have politicalish flavor. Phrases like "Chechens always lived" raise the concern, you may compare the article to the version on Russian Wikipedia, and may be decide in the best way. Those are the reasons why I invited you, as you're noticed to have commented on that talk page already.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The next problem, Calthinus. Goddards changes away wording "inhabited always by Chechens", but writes: "Endirey (one of the oldest and biggest settlements in Aukh)". Endirey has nothing to do with Aukh as far as it goes. This is clearly marginal theory. I could try bringing many many sources and rewrite the article, but I'd firstly like Goddard to stop which seems to be "propagating".--IrelandCork (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Raised a couple of more concerning questions on Talk:Aukh#Gueni,_Endirey_and_other_WP:Marginal_or_Just_absent_in_the_Source --IrelandCork (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: But all of that has nothing to do with WP:Ethics and aggressive style. Content dispute is another issue and, I hope, everyone can be civil enough to work it out eventually. But imperative discussion style, like "you do that, it's you revenge, you say I'm Nazi is uncomfortable.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat, there have been violations on both sides, you are both best off if you return to the talk page. You're right that the latter part of this discusses a content dispute. When you bring up Zandxo and Lamberd under the title of "suspicious behavior", an insinuation socking is always the likely interpretation. Thanks for clearing that up. I would tend to agree that Goddard should stop labeling edits he disagrees with in terms of content as "vandalism", that would be helpful, maybe he'll take a hint. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus Quite difficult, he's now looping the discussion.--IrelandCork (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User Calthinus, I would not mind the Butkovsky edit even if the author of it was racist, i could have posted some other source that disagreed with that one and it would be fair imo. But the thing that bothered me was that he completely erased my edits that did not target any nation but just stated the fact that Chechens historically lived there. And for revenge he edited in the Butkovsky source which confirms that you can't come to a consensus with him at all. Thank you for taking the time and looking into this. Could you please look into the Uchar-Hajji article as well? i posted every source in the talk page and its pages that confirms my edits. I can repost them in here and make my case if you want. --Goddard2000 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy here. Butskovsky was an old military document -- so even if it wasn't racist, it would not be admissible as a source -- WP:PRIMARY, for starters. --Calthinus (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please block these active sockpuppets

• Special:Contributions/HistoryofHumann - blocked on Wikimedia Commons[21]
• Special:Contributions/TurkicHeritage - blocked on Wikimedia Commons[22]

Both are confirmed sockpuppets[23] of already blocked Special:Contributions/Matreeks. Thanks. Wario-Man ^talk 15:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability of awards

In other Wiki articles about celebrities, either the award is notable or not, we users put it in the awards and nominations section of a celebrity's article. But in the case of Charlie Dizon, the creator of the said article, Carl Francis removed my edit about a latest award that the said actress has won because the said award giving body is non-notable. The question is that all awards that the celebrities had won or included due to nomination be included or not and why? I reverted his edit back and putted there a valid source. I don't know if his recent edit falls in WP:AFG and violates WP:Notability (awards). Thank you! Jayjay2020 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit of the said user: [24] and this is my recent edit: [25]

Wikipedia is not "Wiki", and AN is not the place to settle content disputes. Discuss it on the article talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, utilize the dispute resolution process to get the opinions of previously uninvolved editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I have transferred the issue to dispute resolution, in WP:DRN#Charlie Dizon. Jayjay2020 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean...you can do that, and that's a bit better, but if someone disagrees with an edit you made, generally the first step is just to head to the article talk page and ask "Hey, why did you disagree with that?", and then talk it over with them. You can always go to other DR steps later if that discussion comes to an impasse, but skipping that step is kind of bad form. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: I just want to update you that I have raised it in the talk page of the article. I will wait for the user's reply. Jayjay2020 (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Closed at DRN also due to lack of prior article talk page discussion. Sometimes a rule to discuss at the article talk page first means to discuss at the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Justa (rebel)

Hi! An IP is completely changing the content of this page, going so far as to edit Wikidata in the process. Could someone restore it to its original state and semi-protect it for some days/weeks? Thanks! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if a partial rangeblock will hit the spot. El_C 12:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

125.162.23.248

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.

---

Admin action needed on User talk:125.162.23.248, who has made purely disruptive edits on multiple articles. Morgan695 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Just strolling on by but I'm not seeing anything at a glance that warrants admin intervention at a glance. The IP will either heed the warnings or end up at WP:AIV. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 18 needs repair work

Something is badly broken on this page, I suspect from all the "X Lock" discussions, each of which lists all the others. At any rate, I couldn't figure out what to do to fix it. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I noticed the same thing. I tried a couple of things and was pointed to WP:PEIS. In layman's terms the number of template transclusions went over the limit. I'm almost positive this was caused by the large number of lock nominations. Not sure how often this happens at AfD but there is the explanation. I'll leave it up to the admins to figure out what to do if anything. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. Most broken I've ever seen that page. It's basically useless for me. Closing the locks as WP:TRAINWRECK, then <no include/> ing them and instructing the nominator to stick to a more reasonable number per day might work. I struggle to see how !voters will be able to process all of those lock AFDs on a single day. It's super late where I am, so someone else would have to go through that process if it's deemed a reasonable one. Hog Farm _Talk 06:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, as the preview says explicitly, is that Template include size is too large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.13.136 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They are separate, it's just that each discussion has templates linking to the other discussion pages. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the page is broken and something needs fixed. We're likely going to have to either remove or <no include> some of the transclusions; the linking to each other within the AFDs may be a place to start. Hog Farm _Talk 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to comment those "also listing" sections out, unless someone objects. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a load more because the log page was broken again. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed tags by IPs in WikiProject University of Oxford

We have an unusual tagging activity from IP (See Citation needed tags). I could not find a good way to warn those IPs that look like one person. Can an admin help out? --Anneyh (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My notes an IP editor had a dispute about the University of Oxford on 10 March and has been going through Oxford articles since then and tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content. They have also PRODed and AfDed several Oxford articles. Many of the edits are fine in isolation but tagging content as a result of a dispute is disruptive.

• Template talk:University of Oxford#Deletion original dispute about what to include on a template
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford#Recent citation needed tags description of problem, list of IP accounts
• User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9#Recent citation needed tags attempt to contact editor before I realised the context TSventon (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem that needs admin intervention. There's certainly no justification for blocking an editor for removing unsourced content just because they use a dynamic IP. See User_talk:Assem_Khidhr#Revert for some recent discussion. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have time to properly assess the edits here and judge whether anything needs urgently blocking, but for the assistance of other admins I'd point out that this user is completely covered by a /64 range 2603:7000:2143:8500:0:0:0:0/64, which tallies just fine with normal use from an ISP that's using IPv6. If a rangeblock does become required, that range should hit this user and only this user, though the rapid changes to the end of the IP address should not be taken in itself as any evidence of bad faith. ~ mazca ^talk 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? Tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content is called improving the encyclopaedia, not disruptive editing. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• My concern is the editor is only editing Oxford articles to pursue a dispute. Their talk page contributions seem to have a battleground mentality, especially the original dispute. They are tagging articles indiscriminately, e.g. all 39 college articles, rather than drawing attention to the worst referenced articles, so I don't think their focus was improving the encyclopedia. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that the edits are being done to pursue a dispute, but it's not obvious to me what could or should be done about that. Certainly much of the tagging is indiscriminate, being done in a drive by fashion, with no attempt whatsoever to fix issues before tagging them, but in general the IP is at least vaguely accurately identifying statements which (while mostly true) are not well sourced inline, and beyond a few tags on obviously WP:BLUE statements little of it could be considered genuinely disruptive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was/am hoping to convince an admin that some or all of my concerns are justified and then for the admin to explain the same to the IP editor. Hopefully a block would not be needed. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cinema for Peace

Cinema for Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cinema for Peace Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am very uncertain as to what I should do with this particular edit, and wanted to request admin guidance. If it's not the proper place to raise this issue please do let me know.

This is an edit by the Cinema for Peace Foundation about Cinema for Peace, alleging that a particular section in the article is libellous (They clearly constitute libel to Cinema for Peace, an organization working for global peace and intercultural understanding), and therefore removing it.

I first undid this edit but then I had second thoughts and re-did it because I did not want to get accused of libel (WP:DNOLT).

Cinema for Peace Foundation has been reported to WP:UAA for having a promotional username, so I expect that a dialogue with this particular editor will not be able to take place. It has also been "served" WP:COI warnings.

Nevertheless, what should be done with this edit? Should we keep the disputed content or remove it?

I would also recommend to take a look at the article's talk page, which mentions that a number of editors are in a position of WP:COI with this particular organisation and where one of these editors refers to a Berlin court case.

JBchrch (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Their username seems to imply shared use because it is simply the name of a group. In the history of the article, there seems to have been extensive sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oslo95/Archive), so there might be a Checkuser needed here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lof for your swift action User:ToBeFree 👍. What do you think should be done with the "problematic"/potentially libellous edit? JBchrch (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This might depend on the checkuser result, if checkuser is done. Let's wait for a while. Keeping the content removed in the meantime is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious sock puppet accounts that I can confirm on the same IP. Running the range come back as a huge range with numerous users that log into and use it. There isn't much more that I can give, sorry. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, anyway. Then the softblock is probably the right approach for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, ToBeFree.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch: I haven't looked into this particular article, my German-language skills and familiarity with German sources are effectively nil. In general terms though, with removals like this the questions to ask yourself are whether the content is supported by the sources used, whether the sources are reliable, and whether the content is neutrally written, and whether it's relevant/DUE to the article. If the answer to all three is 'yes', then it's usually fine to reinstate. The question of whether the source is biased is always worth thinking about, but per WP:BIASED it's not necessarily a problem to use a source with a particular political slant, so long as their factual reporting is generally reliable, and it's the factual reporting (rather than any editorial opinion) that we are relying on. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this advice, Girth Summit.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Obvious sock not worth reporting to SPI

Rachandchris092711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Rachandchris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The usernames are basically the same, and I assume they are both puppets due to the fact that their only edits are to my talk page, so they clearly knew me/knew of me beforehand. They both included a WikiLove message detailing that they are friendly/want to be my friend. Rachandchris, Rachandchris092711. It's an obvious WP:DUCK case not worth formally reporting. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe one is Rach and the other is Chris hah! — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Per [26] it looks like this is a case of forgotten password, so at first glance I don't think this is a blockable violation of the sockpuppetry policy. With that being said, their first edits targeting you specifically are quite strange... I think I'll still WP:AGF for now, but it remains to be seen whether they are WP:HERE. Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Hah! @Mz7: Yeah, I just saw that. I retracted my comments above. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Subpages deletion

Please delete my subpages that are redirected to published articles. If this is not the right platform to make such requests then tell me where I should do that in future. There are many pages that is why I haven't tagged them for deletion individually. Thanks and regards.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is better, actually, to tag each one for deletion. Since they're in your userspace, just place {{db-u1}} on the subpages you'd like deleted. It's okay to do a lot of pages that way; plenty of people before you have requested U1 deletion of a good number of subpages. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, as it's easy enough to dbatch when a list and request is provided. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac!--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Idiots picking on me again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:104.218.36.228&diff=cur

All these idiots are doing by their behavior is running off everybody outside their little cliques and further entrenching themselves and Wikipedia as a whole into the realm of `infotainment' into which it has been relegated by any serious research institution for several years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.36.228 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@104.218.36.228: It's critical to notify individuals you are talking about that the discussion exists by noting it on their talk pages. I've let Saadrafiq4 know, but I don't know how broadly you are talking about "idiots" (itself not a word choice likely to aid your case). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@104.218.36.228: Hi, I presume you're talking about this revert of mine. I have recently started recent changes patrolling. You did not provide an edit summary, and reading the edit you made, I couldn't make out the context and honestly thought it was vandalism. If it wasn't, you could redo the edits changing the words so they are clear in the context while providing an edit summary, or talk about it on my talk page. I can make mistakes too, although I try my best to remain constructive and make Wikipedia better. — Saadrafiq4 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the one hand Nosebagbear is exactly right, in fact considering the link you dropped, many folks would consider it a personal attack (please do read through that).
  On the other hand, a "Warning" such as "BZZZTTTTT! Wrong answer. Issue escalated to supervisor/admin. Thanks for playing." isn't particularly welcoming or collaborative either.
  and lastly while an edit summary is always preferred, it's not required. (and adding you sig to talk posts is even more preferable than not signing). I don't really see anything actionable here, and think this could likely be closed, but since I've commented, I'll leave that to someone else. — Ched (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC) edited

Ched, look carefully: that message was this IP's response to the warning, not Saad's warning itself, even though it was posted above the latter for whatever reason. Their other replies on their talk page are similarly hostile. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 10:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, Ahhh - you're right. I'll strike some of my comment. My apologies to Saadrafiq4. Thank you M Imtiaz for pointing that out. — Ched (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have major problems collaborating. For example, these responses [27] [28] are clearly inappropriate. But they're especially stupid since there is nothing to fix. A review of the dispute shows [29] that the link was already correctly marked as dead, so the archive took over as the primary link. There was no need for any further maintenance, someone already fixed it. Probably User:CLCStudent could have better explained this but frankly after the first reply, it's not that surprising no one bothered. CLCStudent had their own problems anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The dispute which seems to have set off this thread is another one where the actions they're complaining about seem fair enough. Saadrafiq4 is right that it's difficult to parse their addition [30]. Who is this 'man who did die from AIDS' who 'was an early inspiration'? The IP offers no sources, no any inkling on who this man was or at least how he was an inspiration. I would note the sentence after the next sentence mentions 'David Grant was reported to have suggested the name "Daddy Bear" for this new magazine just before his death from complications from AIDS'. If David Grant is the man the IP is referring to, then the IP's addition is clearly unhelpful. We already better explain David Grant's role 2 sentences away, mentioning some weird fragment in that sentence isn't helpful. If this man is someone else, then the David Grant example shows how the information can be meaningfully integrated into the paragraph, by explaining his role and maybe also mentioning his name. Just saying some random person died of AIDS and 'was an early inspiration' is not particularly useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Mirisa56

This users has a relatively long history in Wikipedia in English but does not seems to improve with time. There is a lot of warnings of deletion for articles or text, for different reasons including copy-paste or website, in his discussion page but he continues to input without regards for these warnings and never answer to queries about his editions. I don't know if an administrator could have a look on his work or give me advice of what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre cb (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations. I'll leave cleaning the revision mess to the next reader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed most of the copyright violations and cleaned up most of the styling issues and such. It definitely needs another go-over regarding the qualifications, salary, and stuff with the FAA, NOAA. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've cleaned anything left over. Let me know if I missed something. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct move

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 delete Yuriy Kryvoruchko (politician) in order to move Draft:Yuriy Kryvoruchko (politician) correctly (in order to save the history of edits and etc.). P.S. I known I did it in incorrect way. Sorry.--Renvoy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Renvoy, I've deleted the copy/paste move. Can you hang on a few minutes while I investigate the decline of the draft? I think it might just be a timing thing. Please hold on.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, @Renvoy: the draft wasn't declined for quality reasons, so I've restored the status quo ante, where it was unreviewed. While it would be cool if you waited for a review, it is not required, and you can choose to move the article to main space to see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

I feel the latest discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography under the built up tab started on there is a personal attack on me and my contributions. Who do I report this to for investigation please. - RailwayJG

WP:ANI is the usual place but as this is here... I’m not seeing any personal attacks in that discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel the editor of that discussion has made an unfair comment about my editing and as I am disabled. I feel they are attacking my editing and writing. I know it can be seen as constructive criticism but they haven't clarified if they are being personal or not.

Please sign your posts, Railway3G. The editor was more than likely referring to bad editing practice. I see no personal attack. Tiderolls 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I, too, see no personal attack and agree with Tide rolls's assessment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not directly related to the issue I can see how some of RailwayJG's edits can be a little unpopular, rather than removing un-sourced items or minor technical errors (that may well be correct) or removing things because they are wrong perhaps improving them or leaving them for others with a note that a citation is needed maybe more welcome. Robidy (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Can an admin go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_Christian_College_-_Singleton_Crest.png&action=delete to delete the page?

I am asking here because simply visiting File:Australian Christian College - Singleton Crest.png does not work as expected (you won't even see the CSD G6 template I just added there) because it also exists on Commons. Going straight to the deletion page will probably work. See File page exists locally on enwiki but only Commons content is shown and no edit link is available on Phabricator for details. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Fastily * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, for what it's worth, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_Christian_College_-_Singleton_Crest.png&redirect=no seems to work for me. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit again? I have this account that was banned for 6 months for socks: Fajkfnjsak

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 have the account Fajkfnjsak. I had that account and sock accounts but I dont have the password to any of those accounts as I just used them as throwaways at the time, so I made this new account to start over. About 1 year ago I was banned for using socks and my wiki page said I was banned for 6 months and gave me the date that the ban would end. 6 months ago, once the ban ended, I started over with a new account because I didn’t have any of the old passwords and begun to edit again. An admin then told me that counts as socking because I didn’t first identify myself as Fajkfnjsak. I said I didn’t know that I had to, I thought I could just move on, but the admin said that it counted as socking again and banned me again. Once again the wiki page said I was banned for 6 months and again gave me a date where I would could return to edit. I am clear on the sock rules (socks are never allowed) and I will not create any other accounts. I wanted to make sure I am in the clear to edit this time, so can I edit again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilto74811 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There are 16 known and suspected socks of User:Fajkfnjsak. Here is a list of them (including Fajkfnjsak) and when they were blocked:

• 9 June 2019: Fasnj21b4jn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 9 June 2019: Fjf4MskaHJS (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 23 July 2019: AhdkjajMdj (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 10 August 2019: Fusab&MKF (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 10 August 2019: H17UcmHdm (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 10 August 2019: Niaf7J1mdM (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 11 August 2019: Muffins867 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 14 August 2019: Lopter82 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Lentol41 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Editor977 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Hepton (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Paokel214 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Powelto42171 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 7 March 2020: Powin1314 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 15 September 2020: Perfteg5 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 15 September 2020: Word2001 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

None of these accounts were blocked for six months. All were blocked indefinitely. This new sockpuppet is making fallacious claims. The most recent sockpuppet (Word2001) even acknowledged the sanctions were indefinite in this edit summary. Given the past sockpuppetry and the current fallacious claims, I'm blocking this count indefinitely as well. @Bilto74811: if you really think there are good reasons why we should trust you again after such a track record, you can carefully lay it out in an unblock request on the talk page of the Bilto74811 account.

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak/Archive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've undone the NAC close,[31] and re-opened this discussion for serious consideration. Sometimes I think many people at Wikipedia don't quite get just how arcane Wikipedia can be, especially our blocking policies, to people who aren't as experienced. As a checkuser I can confirm that it's entirely reasonable for this person to state that a six month ban was in place before a review could be started. I can't elaborate on that, but if you make reasonable allowances in terminology, then what they said is true and entirely understandable. Using a new account to honestly request such an unblock is a typical noob mistake, which I believe should be tackled on the spot and not converted into yet another year-long wait for review. So we are left with what is effectively a 3X ban, which should be discussed here. I have no reason to believe this user is being dishonest, and has not complied with the standard offer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Copied from their talk page unblock request:

As far as moving forward, this is the 2nd time I waited the full 6 months in the past year, which I feel is a good faith attempt to show that I am not making socks or trying to evade bans. I will not make socks. I have no reason to do so. They are immediately found and I am banned. Why would I even want to? I dont and wont. Could I just be on a probationary period with a one strike youre out? You wont need to give a strike, Im wouldnt go through all this trouble just to make a sock Bilto74811 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support unban, per the statement and restrictions above, compliance with the standard offer, per blocks are cheap, checkusers are even cheaper, and other such things. I see no good reason to hold this ban in place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would be in favor of an unban, provided that the user, before being unblocked, has read and understood our Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy and have stated this on their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unban -- filer is clearly attempting to follow the rules (albeit with a flawed understanding of what the SO means, etc.). Am fine with Ymblanter's condition. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support from me too. Thank you zzuuzz. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral: WP:SO isn't just a 6 months time out. I do not see any evidence of contributions beside here. Except for WP:ROPE, I see little reason to undo this if we do not have evidence they are here to build an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE and user's statement: I have read and understand Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry on their talk page, which satisfies Ymblanter's condition. starship.paint (exalt) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support thank you for a little nuance. ——Serial 11:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable. I don't think an explicit one-account restriction is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support (I was the blocking admin) I'm fine with unblocking, but Bilto74811 you need to understand this is almost certainly a last chance. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• Challenge close. I've posted about this at User talk:Nosebagbear, but I want to take my case directly here as well:

1. He was not banned for only six months, but indefinitely for disruptive editing [32]
2. I have been repeatedly harassed by this user (see [33], [34], [35])
3. I find it highly irregular that a blocked user was allowed to post directly to AN to request an unblock.
4. I find the closure premature. I was not even aware of the discussion. Furthermore, he's right back editing the articles he was banned for being disruptive at [36], [37].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Now that Im unbanned, I think Im allowed to comment here, if not just let me know and I wont. The discussion addressed 1,3,4. And there was no topic ban, and as you can see my edits on the topic are constructive and have been in the past. As far as 2, we have definitely had a contentious past, and in my opinion this editor has repeatedly harrassed me in the past. Granted I let them get under my skin, but I will not repeat that mistake. I am committed to editing without breaking the rules and have already shown good faith in doing so. The SO we agreed upon will be effective here, per zzuuzz's comment "per blocks are cheap" and the admins warnings about ROPE and this being a last chance. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting sock puppet investigations about you is not harassment. No good will come of letting this editor edit again.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is. In my opinion your conduct and tone towards me were repeatedly to the level of harassment in the past. But, I am not going to go back and forth with you over it, as in the past that is what escalated to conflict, so this is the last I will respond to you here. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean when I pointed out that you were an obvious banned sock and people should ignore your posts? Is that comparable to writing insults repeatedly on my talk page when you inevitably got blocked for socking again?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think it is beneficial for you two to rehash your previous issues, which Bilto74811 is trying to put behind them, or to quibble over past details. Bilto74811 has accepted wrongdoings and agreed to put them in the past and try again. "But, I am not going to go back and forth with you over it, as in the past that is what escalated to conflict, so this is the last I will respond to you here" seems like a wise approach, and I suggest it would be the best approach for everyone. And, for the record, I support the unblock and I oppose the challenge to the close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Having just read this discussion, I support the unblock, oppose the challenge to the close and advise advise Ermenrich to move on. Or basically, what Boing! said Zebedee said. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• It would have been nice had the editor given me a little longer to respond, but for ease I'll reply to @Ermenrich: here for both comments, so as to not split any further discussion. The editor was indeed banned indefinitely, which is just that, an indefinite amount of time, not permanent. 6 month increments are very common times for appeals to them to be made. I would generally view an unban closure to be premature only if it had either not been open for at least 24 hours, or there was not a clear consensus whilst discussion was ongoing. My close assessed the consensus of the !votes given - it's not my own interpretation of the evidence given, and the policy-backed !votes were very clearly Support unblock. Any unblock request would have had to come to ANI in any event, and usually would have just been directly lifted from a user's talk page and dropped in. There was a technical difference, but in terms of content in the discussion, it wasn't any different. I did have a look at the edits you posted. They are indeed uncivil. I would advise anyone reading the request to override close focus on the individual raising concerns not covered in the unblock appeal, that they were harassed (evidence given: (see [38], [39], [40])). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly the only place he's been uncivil, see [41], he's also edit warred basically every time he's come back adding basically the same stuff (see e.g. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]), and is obsessed with a single POV, namely adding the word "myth" to the page The Exodus to every other sentence. I fail to see why this user deserves a "second" chance, and I don't feel like his behavior was properly taken into account by the discussion.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring with a racist

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.

---

Huasteca, a Mexican-based user and nationalist who mainly and frequently targets El Salvador's ethnic composition and edit these pages according to his own personal racial views, yet only apply these views in the Salvadorans pages and not the Mexican demographic pages, he neglect to answer why he makes exception to all Latin American pages except for the one's relation to El Salvador. This user makes changes in the Demographics of El Salvador as well and removes sources that don't fit his personal racial agenda despite advices to find better sources rather than going into a erasing rampage. I tried to act civil with this user but he persistently keep editing Salvadoran pages with valuable information for weeks. When confronted with reliable sources he dismiss these and begins on a edit warring rampage over and over again. When Sources are presented, he erases them out of spite. This user seems to be infatuated with race in El Salvador and seems to be bent on erasing African, Indigenous and European contributions in El Salvador. — Preceding Cobaltous comment added by Cobaltous (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question, as is required here. GAB^gab 02:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltous (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cobaltous, these are grave accusations that should not be made anywhere on Wikipedia without immediately substantiating them with diffs. Please see WP:DIFFS for information and instructions on using diffs. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I think Cobaltous may not be very familiar with how wikipedia works. I am trying to explain to him that it is meant to accurately reflect sources and not be a platform for writing essays to promote one's personal opinion. He has been inserting large blocks of unsourced and questionable content, presumably written by him based on the language and tone, which I have been removing since it does not meet WP standards and much of which is simply factually incorrect. His focus is related to El Salvador, a relatively obscure topic and therefore much of his edits have gone unnoticed until now. I don't think he is being consciously destructive, he simply needs further guidance on Wikipedia's rules and manual of style. That's all I have to add to this discussion. Regards.Huasteca (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool

Huasteca I believe you are the one who doesn't know how wikipedia works and handle disagreements on wikipedia. If you disagree with someone, you have to try to resolve by reaching a compromise, which I did. You however, you did the complete opposite and went on a edit warring rampage for weeks. The sources were in fact being presented, the problem is that you did not care for sources, you wanted to erase anything that had to do with Africans in El Salvador, even though the sources were presented. Then you claimed all of Latin America did not recognize different ethnicities, which is a big lie, and you began to apply the one-drop rule exclusively on El Salvador demographics. When I asked why you were only editing Salvadoran pages in this manner but not the other Latin American pages, you just ignored me and continued on your war editing. You continued on to the indigenous people of El Salvador during the Spanish colonization. When I provided sources for that section, you ignored those sources and went yet on another edit warring rampage. Everytime you got caught and cornered with a fair questions, you behaved in this way. Your problems were not the sources, it was the views on race that you only applied in El Salvador pages. — Preceding Cobaltous comment added by Cobaltous (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

T09

T09 (talk · contribs) - This editor has edited and created articles related to transport in the 4 years they’ve been here. The problem is out of the 3,622 edits they’ve made six of them have been made to talk pages (i.e. their own user talk page). Five of them were to remove posts by other editors. The other one was this (which appears to have gone unnoticed. They also appear to never leave an edit summary. Is there anyway to get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You could try starting a conversation on T09's talk page. That would be friendlier than starting one on the dramaboards. Cabayi (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much confidence in getting a response seeing as they blanked this message left by Davey2010, plus this message left by Fleet Lists, in addition to the diff I’ve previously linked where they added a personal attack to an editor's signature. Nevertheless I’ve now left a message and will see whether they reply or ignore. SK2242 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it may be stretching the point to complain about lack of response to two messages 17 & 10 months ago, neither of which specifically required an answer. Cabayi (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support block - They've continued to add the content they've explicitly been told not to add and I had consensus to remove these years ago. The lack of edit summaries is worrying especially for someone who's been here for like 6-7 years now?. Maybe it's a language thing I don't know but either way they clearly don't care about consensus or about communicating with people so IMHO they should be blocked until they can learn both things. –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Struck as per JBW's comment below. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot of confidence in the likelihood of this editor changing their ways, especially in view of the talk page edit that SK2242 has linked to. However, as Cabayi has rightly suggested, attempts to communicate to the editor by others have been very limited, in most cases without any attempt to explain what the problems are in a way which would be helpful to an editor without experience of what the guidelines, policies, and accepted practices are. We really should give the editor a chance to change, rather than jumping right in with blocks or any other kind of sanctions. SK2242 and Davey2010 have now both posted brief messages to the editor's talk page about a couple of matters, and I have posted a more extended message about what seem to me to be the main problems. We should hope that the editor will take notice of those messages, and now have a better understanding of what Wikipedia's requirements are. Obviously, if that doesn't work then we can reconsider the matter, but we can hope we won't need to.
• For the record, the editor also has another account, T201. JBW (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi JBW, Admittedly after I posted the above I did wonder If I was jumping the gun here. I've since left them a politer messages as have you so I guess we should see how it goes from there. Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with above. SK2242 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming here after RD1ing their talk page, since their reaction to the talk page notices was to post about 800KB of the lyrics to Never Gonna Give You Up -- I interpret that as the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It might be about time to make them cry, say goodbye. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Rickrolling just the lyrics? Very 2007, & very half-baked. T09 may be aiming to prove they're WP:NOTHERE, but not quite there yet. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we now have a copyright breach and they claim to have retired, what is the actual issue - do we have examples where their failure to communicate has meant an actual editing issue (failed dispute resolution etc etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Review requested: I have blocked Mathsci for three months for IBAN violation

In June, 2018 User:Francis Schonken (hereafter referred to as "FS") and User:Mathsci were placed under a WP:IBAN restriction with each other (see the discussion and its closure). This IBAN remains active (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community). Since the institution of this IBAN, Mathsci has received the following blocks for violating it:

1. 6 November 2020 block log entry by User:Floquenbeam: This was an indefinite ban from User talk:Francis Schonken for Mathsci making a series of edits to FS' talk page [49][50][51][52] This block was removed by the blocking admin after assurances were given by Mathsci that they would never post to FS' talk page again. Mathsci has upheld that promise. See AN/I discussion regarding this incident.
2. 9 November 2020 block log entry by User:NinjaRobotPirate: This was a 1 week site block resulting from the above 6 November 2020 incident. See also User talk:Mathsci#November 2020
3. 3 February 2021 block log entry by User:El C: This was a 1 month site block. See User talk:Mathsci#Block. An unblock request for this block was denied by User:JBW.

On 17 March 2021, Mathsci made this edit which made direct reference to this edit by FS. WP:IBAN notes "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" This edit by Mathsci was in my opinion a clear violation of the IBAN, as it directly commented on an edit by FS. I raised issue with this on Mathsci's talk page, and gave a very sternly worded final warning to Mathsci regarding violating the IBAN. See discussion on Mathsci's talk page. In that final warning, I warned Mathsci that any further violations would result in a three month block.

Today at 04:25 UTC, FS made this edit that added a {{nowrap}} to two locations in a translation. At 05:03 UTC today (less than an hour later), Mathsci commented out the {{nowrap}}s placed by FS. WP:IBAN notes "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" This edit by Mathsci is, in my opinion, an unequivocal bright line violation of the IBAN.

Accordingly, and per the final warning I noted above, I have blocked Mathsci for three months for violating the IBAN [53]. I invite feedback from other administrators regarding this block and my handling of the situation. If another administrator feels the block is inappropriate they are welcome to shorten or eliminate the block if they feel it necessary to do so without further consultation with me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it may be time for an indef. Disruptive editing has gone on for a long time despite several warnings and blocks. Good block. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  As I've pointed out on Mathsci's TP, FS should also/instead get blocked - he's also on a similarly sliding slope of seemingly unending disruption with Mathsci AND other editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have placed a warning on FS' talk page at User talk:Francis Schonken#WP:IBAN violation regarding the IBAN violation. Whether or not FS made an edit that affected Mathsci's edit is no excuse for Mathsci to effectively revert FS' edit. WP:IBAN makes no allowances for such cases. I have not blocked FS for this incident. However, I don't think blocking FS for it would be entirely inappropriate either. There's a narrow window within the IBAN policy that could be construed as allowing the edit, as FS' edit [54] did not undo Mathsci's edit [55], whereas Mathsci's edit [56] clearly undid FS' [57]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've ne'er been a big fan of technicalities. For background (for others) Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. Also, I don't think we should be extending "benefit of doubt" to established editors over technicalities - they should know better; and it's not like the problem between FS and Mathsci is something that begun today (and also per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). FS also seems to have a propensity for, exactly, arguing technicalities: saying that this somehow isn't a "content fork" while it's basically a slightly modified copy of this is very much too close, to my taste, to something like WP:WIKILAWYERING... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeming to be ominous (I'm not), FS' actions are not going without notice. It is important to understand that FS' actions are irrespective of Mathsci's. Mathsci isn't responsible for FS' actions nor vice versa. If one or both violate policies, guidelines, or sanctions, I am confident appropriate actions will be taken. I believe in this case that Mathsci's actions created a bright line, unequivocal violation of the IBAN with FS. This is why I took the action that I did. FS' actions do not provide an excuse under which Mathsci can act. WP:IBAN isn't written that way, nor should it be. If it were, it would create a situation where edit warring was accepted under an IBAN so long as the person who did it was under the IBAN with the person with whom they were edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a perennial problem, with those two, yes, but also with the IBAN model itself, overall, especially when it involves a relatively narrow scope of articles, where the IABAN'd editors are therefore more likely to meet (if not greet). Recently seen the acrimony it still didn't prevent from rising to the fore with the Newimpartial and the now indeffed Lilipo25 IBAN, for example. But how to get around that challenge?

To that: a few years back, I tried to account for that problematic with a custom DS (GMO) IBAN for Tryptofish and SashiRolls, which also added a 2nd-edit page prohibition (which ended up giving Tryptofish a huge advantage, since they began editing many of the affected pages first). The sanction was overturned soon thereafter, anyway, for unrelated reasons (of which I am largely unfamiliar with to this day), or rather, converted into a normal IBAN, but one-way against SR. Anyway, regardless, in hindsight, I later recognized that this custom page-level IBAN was a poorly-formed idea on my part. Sorry, this is probably not helping much. In any case, it's a conundrum. El_C 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that an IBAN is an effective tool in situations such as this. Both FS and Mathsci are heavily involved in classical music areas of interest on the project. They are dancing on the same floor in close proximity to each other. They are going to bump into each other and cause an IBAN violation. My concern with this incident is that Mathsci's edit came so close on the heels of FS' edit, and clearly undid what FS has done. I can't think that was anything other than intentional. I also do not think that a topic ban would work in this case either. I'm open to suggestions on what we could do instead in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that in this case the IBAN is showing itself to be very much de facto ineffective. Short of the almighty Banhammer, a topic ban would be the logical next step (even if that would mean we'd lose 2 valuable contributors in an area - then again WP:UNBLOCKABLES); but then this has been going on for far too long... A real conundrum, as El C states. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As Hammersoft noted, when the editors in question have been utterly ignoring their IBAN as though it never existed, there's no reason to expect that a TBAN would be treated any differently. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

At least a TBAN has much less grey areas. "Classical music (in the usual broad [common practice era, c. 1600-20th century; if we need to extend to include contemporary music why not] or even in a very broad [all of documented Western music, from the middle ages to the present day] sense), broadly construed" is much harder to claim technicalities than "technically didn't alter the other's edits". Then if we have further ignoring of sanctions, the outcome is predictable... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• endorse block regrettable but inevitable. We need the expertise, but not at the price of the melodrama. No call on whether FS should be blocked as well. I wish people who have so much to offer could get along and not fight. What a waste. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• endorse (Non-administrator comment) very regrettably as per DFO, but this seems to be correct enforcement of an interaction ban (even if it was on a minor, if clear cut, infraction) and there's no sign that further disruptive behaviour between these two editors which we're trying to prevent would stop at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pianissimo At their recent RfA, Hammersoft said that their username was an "intentional oxymoron. Imagine lightly tapping with a hammer...". But a three-month block from all of Wikipedia seems to be quite a heavy blow. Please consider that there is now an option to make a partial block and this seems to be appropriate when editors are treading on each other's toes in particular places. In this case, Mathsci was breathing down FS's neck at Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. Why not give Mathsci an indefinite block from that article alone? If they should seem to follow FS to another such article then block them from that one too and so on. If the parties observe a creeping limitation of their access to such articles, then they may learn to be more circumspect. See also proportionality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  We have been proportional. The community should not need to mollycoddle editors who want to edit here. Mathsci has already had lots of chances and warnings. They've already gone through a series of escalating blocks and found their editing completely restricted for periods, but seem to have failed to learn anything from it. So frankly it's getting to the stage where it's becoming apparent they seem incapable of learning "to be more circumspect" and there's definitely zero reason to think partial blocks will do it. Partial blocks are useful, and perhaps if there was no previous iban violations, a partial block from one article and maybe its talk page would be a good way to try and deal with the problem instead of a 24 hour block or whatever. But it's ridiculous to suggest an ever expanding list of partial blocks because an editor refuses to be serious with their iban. If an editor can't resist the urge to poke another editor even when we've told them in no uncertain terms they need to resist, they can fuck off, no matter how good their general work is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: It is indeed a heavy blow, and one I didn't want to take. I tried very hard to avoid it. Please see this thread, where a final warning was given for something that other administrators likely would have blocked Mathsci but I chose instead to warn for, with a custom written personal warning. This block was preceded by other blocks for violations of the IBAN and other infractions of the IBAN. The message is not getting through. If lightly tapping the hammer isn't getting through, heavier blows might. This is the action that I've taken. To continue your musical analogy (which seems apropos, given the subject area in which Mathsci and FS work), we were at pianissimo years ago, before the IBAN was put in place. With all the disputes that happened around that, we reached mezzo piano before the IBAN. At the IBAN institution, we reached mezzo forte. With the block this past November, we were at double forte. With the month long block in February, we were at triple forte. We're now in what I've heard some brass players like to say as "blow their ears off" territory that would make Tchaikovsky proud. I've suggested, and pinged you to, your alternative for partial blocks to Mathsci. If Mathsci is amenable, I will start a sub-thread here to seek community input on what would be a novel sanction (so far as I'm aware). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hammersoft's block is well within the range of reasonable admin actions available to him; indeed, before the block, Mathsci received more advice on how to avoid a block than many might have received—or expected. And yet. Someone is clearly at fault in that equation; it is not the administrator. ——Serial 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Google Street View

I have been trying to add information about museums that have been added in 2020 and 2021 on this page, but for a reason, the edition is removed, I have been looking for the information for these museums, in which I found references that specifically cite that these museums have been added to Google Street View and on a certain date. I have written several comments regarding that this information should be on the talk page but no one gives me a clear answer regarding this information. What should I do?--JSeb05 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

JSeb05, your question would be better suited at the teahouse; this page is used to report issues to the administrators. (NAC) Nightfury 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What happens is that the User FDW777, keeps reverting my edits and the information that added the page, this information has exact date and are from reliable sources, I have tried to talk to the user, but he has not given me a clear answer.--JSeb05 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: if you want to bring up an editor's actions here or on ANI you should notify them on their talk page, manually or using the TB option on Twinkle. SK2242 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to engage with this editor, only it's proving difficult. Their newly added material has been removed with an explanation and pointing to WP:ONUS, only to have it restored without consensus with an edit summary saying First, a decision should be made and voted on the talk page before removing this type of information, and for anyone not checking where "talk page" links to it's an easter egg link to failed proposal Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote. Then there's also additions such as this where a map with a few different coloured lines is cited for an addition of Turkey towns/cities of Gaziantep, Nizip, Birecik, İslahiye, Sanliurfa and Siverek, when the map doesn't even contain the names of any places at all. FDW777 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not good at editing or citing references, I'm new to editing pages. These sites were added to Google Street View in 2020, first of all, the page mentions in multiple sections about the different museums around the world (For example, the National Museum of Iraq), these virtual tours are considered as Street View. In 2020, Google cooperated with different museums in Germany, Italy and Austria for virtual tours, I gave sources and dates of the Street View as well as news reports of such events., these sources talk specifically about Street View (1)(2)(3). The reason why I added that map of Turkey is because the red lines represent the urban centers of those cities or towns that were added in March 2020. That tool compares different layers of blue lines and detects which ones are added by Google on a certain date.--JSeb05 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 is correct, JSeb05, that if you add some content and it's removed then you should discuss this on the talk page. It takes a lot of experience to find out which pages reflect common practice, which pages are interpreted how and which pages are not really looked at. In seven years I don't think I've ever seen Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote before, but the "failed proposal" sign at the top should be a dead giveaway. WP:BRD is a page that has a lot more meaning to the community. It's just very annoying if someone keeps adding the same thing again, even if it's alongside discussion—it serves to highlight your differences and make things feel like a fight, whereas in a discussion one person might learn something new and change their mind, or two people might find their views actually align quite a lot and there is a compromise to have (e.g. the content belongs on a different article, or some of it is actually fine for this article). — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry again, I did not know about it, I will try to be more careful when adding this kind of information, thank you very much for telling me this.--JSeb05 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Time sensitive main page image issue

There's been some concern raised that the image for WP:TFA (currently on the main page) is unnecessarily graphic. There's a discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Buruli_ulcers which I participated in, which I would tentatively describe as having a consensus to remove or replace the images, although no consensus about what to replace them with. Could an administrator have a look and see whether it is appropriate at this time to remove or replace the images? The TFA coordinators have been pinged, but as far as I can tell none have responded, and the problem is time sensitive on account of involving the current main page. Finally, I apologize if this is not an appropriate forum for such a request. Tamwin (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• The TFA coordinator has changed the image. For the record: TFA old permalink and new permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahlavi dynasty

Is this article move protected? There's no indication of such, but there's also no "move" tab (although the talk page has one). The article is written with "Imperial State of Iran" as the subject matter. Having "Pahlavi dynasty" as the article title is discordant. Either the article should be re-written to match the title, or it should be moved to "Imperial State of Iran" with "Pahlavi dynasty" as a redirect. The current combination is not ideal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Yes it's moved protected. Look at the logs. No idea why it was moved protected indefinitely a year after the last move. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading this, I had a faint feeling of déjà vu. Checking some more, I found this contribution from me when I came across the article by coincidence in 2017. Nobody responded, I forgot about it, and the curious "former country"="royal house" situation is still there. There is currently a split proposal discussed in the talk page, but with very little participation. The solution is obviously to split the article, but the level of interest is probably too low to expect anyone to do the job. --T*U (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Jessiemay1984 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Jessiemay1984 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Jessiemay1984 unblocked

No log to record non-AE restriction violations

Should there not be something like WP:AEL for WP:EDRC (and for Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary), so that an enforcement record can be easily accessible? El_C 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

When I gave JazzClam a 2-week {{uw-cserblock}} earlier today, I was thinking: if this was set up like AEL (without a table), I'd likewise just note the block in an indented bulletpoint below the original sanction. I guess the block log records this well enough, but it does preclude logging a warning, for example. El_C 20:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and also that could serve as a central record of the sanctions themselves, and show which ones are still trouble spots. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, it's never really been too pressing of an issue because RESTRICT violations are so much more infrequent than AE ones...? Still, I'd support a log setup for best recordkeeping practices. Less chance of repeat violations falling through the cracks that way. El_C 04:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess there isn't much interest in setting up a RESTRICT log, after all. Oh well.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks for the support, though, Seraphimblade. El_C 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: maybe leave this open a bit longer? I support it, just haven't had time to respond. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug, 4 days later, there still doesn't seem to be that much interest. Oh well. El_C 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Motion regarding Tenebrae

Due to a conflict of interest, User:Tenebrae is indefinitely banned from any mainspace edits related to Frank Lovece or Maitland McDonagh, broadly construed. Violations will be enforced by escalating blocks. They may request edits on talkpages. This restriction may be appealed in six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion regarding Tenebrae

See also the CBAN discussion below/ Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban application to non-EN wiki's

I'm serving a six month topic ban from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. Does this ban apply to non-EN wiki's? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions, blocks and topic bans only apply on the Wiki they were imposed on. Administrative actions on one Wiki have no power on another Wiki unless there has been a global account action. Community bans, which is what was imposed on you, are only effective in the community they were imposed in. Be aware though that another community (i.e. language) may take that you've been topic banned on en-Wiki into account if you happen (not presuming you would) to cause issues there. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandbh - I would advise you, first, to limit your editing to encyclopedias in which you are fluent in the language, and, if you think that you are fluent in a language but are not sure about that, it isn't enough. We have many editors who are not competent in English, and we have a culture of being patient with editors who try to use English with difficulty. Some non-English Wikipedias may not be patient if your command of the language is less than fluent. Second, before you start to edit other Wikipedias, develop a clear and realistic idea of what your mistakes were here that led to your topic ban, and be extra careful to avoid repeating those mistakes. A good record or a less than good record are likely to be taken into account by the English Wikipedia in deciding how much to welcome you back when your topic ban is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting that an editor who received a topic ban here only after a very extended period of general disruption and discussions in multiple venues, including at ArbCom, is considering taking their behavior patterns to other WMF projects before their topic ban has even been discussed being lifted here. That seems to be an indication that Sandbh has not taken onboard the validity of this community's concern for their editing behavior. Whether this is sufficient for additional sanctions I am not certain, but it is -- as I said -- disturbing.

I'm not very familiar with Meta. Is there a venue there in which Sandbh's apparent interest in expanding the scope of their disruptive editing can be brought up? I think it only fair that either other wikis be warned about this, or that Sandbh's topic ban be expanded to be a global one, if such a thing as a global topic ban is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BMK on this – this kind of query (especially combined with barely editing in the three months since the topic ban was imposed) is definitely raising some large red flags. Number 57 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not a strict analogy), some indefinitely blocked editors are encouraged to show that they can be productive on other projects under the standard offer and we've seen some appeals based on the offer declined because they've just waited out the six months. Perhaps a more charitable (or naïve) interpretation from me. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion to edit productively elsewhere is often made to those appealing indef blocks or site bans, but I think that those who are topic banned here are generally advised to productivey edit here in other subject areas, rather than to edit on other wikis in the subject area they are banned from on en.wiki. I think it would be ill-advised and rude on our part to subject our fellow Wikipedians who speak other languages to the possibility of disruptive behavior that we have sanctioned here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah like I said, not a great analogy. But I think our hands are tied: the English Wikipedia community only has jurisdiction over English Wikipedia and the bans it imposes (to my knowledge, anyways) do not carry over to other projects like Simple etc. It's not something I would personally encourage, but it's hard to see what else can be done. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, no one was metaphorically run over or killed. For this level of infraction, you'd get points on your license. If it happened again, you might have to attend safe-driving classes. The Wikipedia equivalent might be WP:CLEANSLATE, but for some reason they're asking for the death penalty, as if were a vandal troll and irredeemable. Seems a bit much when other options are available.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I asked if there was someplace on Meta where a possible global sanction could be suggested. We can't do anything, but we are also part of the global WMF community, which, possibly can do something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Making sure that some global Stewards who are familiar with en.wiki are aware of this thread: @AmandaNP, Bsadowski1, Jon Kolbert, MarcoAurelio, Martin Urbanec, and MusikAnimal:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure stewards, especially myself, really have anything to contribute here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So...one project finds an editor's behavior disruptive enough to topic ban them, the editor threatens to go to other language projects, where, presumably, they'll repeat their behavior pattern, and there's no mechanism by which other projects can at least be warned about this possibility, or the editor officially warned away from potentially disrupting another project? That seems like a hole in the system ripe for exploitation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for simple the topic ban wouldn't apply there. However, we don't typically give much leeway to people on sanctions from en.wiki as we often get a flood of them when people say go edit elsewhere and proove yourself. As such people on indef blocks/bans here only get one strike there before they are blocked there. Topic bans we don't have an equivalent policy but I suspect we would likely follow suit if they showed the same behaviour there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail; Robert McClenon; Sdrqaz|; AmandaNP and DJSasso for your prompt and considered responses. For the record, 1. the discussions resulting in my community imposed topic ban occurred at ANI, rather than in multiple venues (I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong). 2. Arbcom declined to take on the case, which involved at least two other editors besides myself. 3. I have chosen not to edit much for the past three months, and may well serve out my topic ban here on the same basis. That said I've used my time productively to complete a topic ban related article accepted for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed Journal, drafted a submission for the relevant international body; and have had several productive ongoing discussions via PM and Zoom, with WP colleagues.

It was interesting to read standard offer and the {{2nd chance}} procedure; kudos to Sdrqaz for mentioning those.

If I have anything further to say about Beyond my Ken's responses, I will do so at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be deliberately specious. The discussions about disruption in the subject area of the chemical elements -- of which your behavior was very much a part -- took place in multiple venues. That they ended up with a TB for you, decided as the result of an ANI thread, doesn't mean that the prior discussions didn't take place, nor does it mean that the topic ban wasn't the result of the totality of all the discussions.

I will not accept any comments from you about this subject at my talk page. If you have anything to say, you'd best say it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to clear up any confusion, while the discussions that led to my TB occurred at ANI they were informed by edits and actions that occurred mainly at WP:ELEM and periodic table.

I expect the non-en editors will be able to judge the calibre and appropriateness of my contribution. I further expect I will have nothing more to contribute to this current thread. Sandbh (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Having glanced at their most recent contributions, I'm also a bit concerned that the OP appears to be making proxy edits at the request of an article subject (Louise Katz), based on apparent off-wiki requests. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I participated in some of the previous ANIs regarding Sandbh. At least until the last one, where I got frustrated enough that I decided to take at least the twelve days of Christmas off WP, so I didn't appear at the ANI thread. Currently I am back and WT:ELEM seems to be functioning just fine; article work is being done, and no one seems to be wanting to take anyone else to ANI for the last two months.

Sandbh went to de.wp after this thread to discuss the same topic that had started the whole issue back here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements: the composition of group 3 of the periodic table. The discussion is at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Chemie#Einteilung_und_Anordnung_der_Elemente_in_Vorlage:Infobox_Chemisches_Element_Vorlage:Periodensystem. I was already there, since I got invited on my talk page by User:Tinux (who wanted to know where the en.wp discussion for this took place). The decision that de.wp decides on isn't the most important thing for me, since it's not my home-wiki (I speak the language to some extent, but I mostly edit here): it's for that community to decide first of all. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens in July when his TBAN expires here. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Like others who have posted here, I was a bit concerned about Sandbh editing on other wikis in his banned topic area rather than editing on this wiki in non-banned topic areas. But to be fair, before doing so, he came here first to ask whether he could or not. He could have simply researched this issue, come to the same conclusion, and then begun editing. IMO his choosing to ask should be commended and not characterized by saying he "threatens to go to other language projects". Asking a question does not constitute making a threat, and IMO 'threatens' is a loaded word that seems to fail WP:AGF. In response to this, Sandbh did not immediately fire back in the same venue (as was his wont a few months ago), but IMO wisely considered discussing the situation in user talk space. Would that discussion have been civil? Alas we will never know, because the discussion was declined. This, too, was no doubt a wise action, but it means that we cannot yet learn to what extent he has learned his lesson. YBG (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with YBG. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• First, User:Sandbh, as others have noted above, your en-wiki topic ban does not restrict your editing on other wikis in any way. However, whether it is a good idea for you to edit on the same topic on German Wikipedia is another matter. IMO, it is not a good idea. Once your topic ban expires here, if the problems that led to the topic ban continue, it can be extended and even made indefinite. In any such future discussion what you were doing while t-ban was in effect may be a consideration. Again, IMO it would be much better for you to develop a record of editing here on en-wiki on other topics in the meantime, instead of going to other wikis and editing there on the same topic from which you are t-banned here. Not only will that look better for you later, but, once your t-ban expires here, you would not be boxed in into continuing editing just on that single topic. Second, I want to revisit the concern raised by Symmachus Auxiliarus above regarding your apparent proxy edits to Louise Katz. Several of your edit summaries [58][59][60][61][62] indicate that you were acting based on off-wiki requests of the subject of the article. Note that if you know the subject of the article personally, you yourself have a WP:COI with respect to the article and should not edit the article directly. Moreover, even if the subject of the article somehow contacted you at random, COI requests should still be made and discussed at the article's talk page, via edit request, before being incorporated into the article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

T. Silva

Hi. I've listed an article on DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_14#T._Silva (dated 14 March 2021) for review after this AfD. How long it takes usually before admin closes it? Störm (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A week, or when consensus seems clear, whichever comes last. This should probably be relisted as it is still being actively discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

DRV doesn't really relist. It just sits there in the ready to be closed pile until someone closes it (normally after discussion has died down). Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Black"

There is a dispute between at least two editors and maybe more involving the capitalization of "Black" when it is used as a proper adjective referring to a racial or ethnic group. A dispute request was filed at DRN referencing African American Vernacular English, but it is not an article content dispute and is not about African American Vernacular English. It is a content dispute that may apply to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages, because we have at least tens of thousands of biographies of such people. It is a Manual of Style dispute that should be resolved by a Request for Comments about capitalization standards. One editor is complaining that they are being hounded or harassed. I see no evidence of hounding; complaints of hounding are more common than actual hounding.

Notifying User:Generalrelative and User:BlauGraf.

I am not requesting any particular administrative action at this time except administrative awareness that this dispute, which should be resolved at WT:MOSCAPS, may call for reminders of the need for civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There was in fact a recently closed RfC on this very question that is relevant here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Nsk92 and User:Rosguill (as closer). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept this resolution. The issue is one of proper English construction, and yet I am being ignored. The rules of English are clear that only proper nouns are capitalized, and black is not a proper noun. As further proof of this, white is not capitalized, ergo black cannot be as well. Asian is because Asia is a country continent, and thus a proper noun. As to harassment, my claim and evidence has been submitted, as the referenced used, Generalrelative, continues to stalk my work and try to erase my edits. - Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Asian is because Asia is a country...

Well, that's going to come as a big surprise to people in China, Japan, and India. --Calton | Talk 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For those confused about the above comment, note that BlauGraf modified their initial comment almost an hour after this reply [63] while leaving no indication they had done so. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that they also changed Robert McClenon's post. BlauGraf, do not change other people's posts. This violates the talk page guidelines. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, BlackcurrantTea. I'll just ping Robert McClenon here in case he wants to restore his original comment. And while I don't want to pile on, I will note that BlauGraf also removed a comment I made on my own talk page when leaving a comment of their own: [64] A small thing in and of itself but if it's part of a larger pattern that could be a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:BlackcurrantTea, User:Generalrelative. My original comment had only been ridiculing User:BlauGraf for a silly error that they compounded by trying to alter the past. I see no need at this point to restore it, but altering another editor's comment on a talk page is not a small thing in and of itself. It is fraud, and it violates far older rules than the so-called rules of English that are older than the English language. It is not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Generalrelative; Robert McClenon, sorry for not pinging you. I was distracted when I posted, and simply forgot. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlackcurrantTea - The failure to ping me is a minute thing. It was the alteration of my words that was not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the "rules of English" are descriptive, not prescriptive -- or did I overlook the existence of an International English Academy which enforces the rules? --Calton | Talk 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also a more recent discussion (from February, the RFC was from December) about how the results of the RFC should be formalized in the MOS. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Discussion_about_capitalisation_of_Black_(people). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given BlauGraf's behavior and rhetoric, I'm not sure if I need to weigh in here at all. Still, perhaps against my better judgment, here goes:

This user is not being ignored, as they claim. They are in fact being treated with an abundance of WP:AGF not only by Robert McClenon but also by two members of the Arbitration Committee: [65]. I too have been treating them with WP:AGF, explaining my rationale for reverting their efforts to contravene MOS:VAR in edit summaries ([66], [67]) and on my talk page: [68]. Note too that I was not the only editor to revert them here: [69], though I was the one to leave a template warning for edit warring and a follow-up on their talk page, which have since been deleted: [70].

They have also not been ignored on the MOS talk page, where I referred them over a week ago: [71] After one final round of edit warring [72], they did finally post there on the 17th ([73]) and were offered a very patient explanation as to why they are wrong by SMcCandlish: [74]

Re. the accusation of hounding, this user appears to think that because we are active on some of the same pages it means that all of this activity comes from me watching their contribution history. I did check this history after realizing that they were edit warring over style at African-American Vernacular English and was concerned about related problems on multiple articles (an acceptable use of contrib history per WP:HOUNDING). But it was entirely coincidental that I was also involved in reverting an earlier wave of edits this user made back in January, when they were pushing the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and in other ways white-washing Nazi-related topics. For the very civil discussion we had about this back in January, see this deleted thread from their talk page: [75].

As to their stated unwillingness to accept the RfC, I will leave it to others to judge. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused or both by the assertion that "Asian" is capitalized because Asia was said to be a country. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously, we should write "irish", "zimbabwean", and "canadian", since Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Canada aren't continents. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good lord, such obvious mistakes shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. For the record, you have it lucky in English: in French, it's a fair bit more complex - it's minuscule except when the word is explicitly referring to an ethnicity/nationality and it is a noun (so "Les Français parlent en français avec leurs amis français":"The French speak in [f]rench with their [f]rench friends")... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to be offended - Asia is a proper noun as it is a continent (and thus proper). Non-proper nouns are not capitalized. However, it is very apparent that this collective organization has seen fit to disregard the apparent rules of English construction. As for the reference that I was responded to, that is correct at its base, but fails to take into account that the response received was improper, and no one has actually accepted the fact that colors are not capitalized, where proper nouns are. However, as this seems to be something that you, collectively, are pushing, I cannot be heard.

Secondly, there is reference to an edit made on a page relating to the German Army. My family served in the Army, and I will not discuss that further, since your anti-German slant is quite apparent. I will correct a mis-statement: nothing I corrected was related to the Nazis, it was relating to the German Army. The Army may have served when the Nazis ruled, but not all soldiers were nazis, in the same way now that every American did not become a democrat when Biden was elected, and the American Army now is not the Democratic Army. Do you see the correlation?

It is quite obvious you wish to push some sort of hatred, and so I will do my best to continue to remain within my fields of expertise. I do ask that the generalrelative person be banned from editing any of my articles. His harassment has not ceased. - Blaugraf

@BlauGraf: This isn't a Wikipedia thing. You seem to have missed the general movement to capitalize Black. This New York Times article which explains it is one example, but far from the only one. Sometimes it is surprising to find out that something you thought was correct is no longer correct. I remember noticing one day that newscasters had moved from pronouncing Kiev as KEY-ev to KEEV. Similary I discovered that what I had always known as Rangoon was now generally known as Yangon. Things change. You'll get used to it. Mo Billings (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Just because a left-leaning newspaper begins to do something that is popular, doesn't make it right. The Russian Revolution was popular, as were the Nazis - and neither were right. Language does not change just because some people want it to. They have to conform to the rules, that is why we have rules. I learned this language 31 years ago when we came here from East Germany. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

Actually, language does change because some people want it to. That's exactly how language changes. I guarantee some of what you learned 31 years ago is no longer considered correct usage, but you probably just accepted those changes without any fuss. If you want to have a political argument, Wikipedia is the wrong site for it. On the other hand, if you just like dogmatic application of rules, there are several Wikiprojects were you will feel at home. Mo Billings (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Small aside to @BlauGraf: - please sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~) and also ensure your signature complies with WP:SIGLINK. GiantSnowman 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I was doing so correctly. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

By the way, this is a capitalization and Manual of Style dispute, and ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the article titles and capitalization decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The short version: The RfC concluded with a clear consensus against "Black but white", both for NPOV reasons and consistency reasons, but did not come to a consensus in favor of "Black and White" over "black and white" or vice versa. So, as before the RfC, that is left to editorial judgment at a particular article. The only firm result was to not use one capitalized and the other not, in the same article/category/list/context (see MOS:ARTCON, WP:CONSISTENT).

The main argument for capitalizing both is that they are serving the function of proper names, as demonyms. The main argument for lower-casing is that they are not consistently capitalized in contemporary reliable sources, so the first rule of MOS:CAPS (don't capitalize that which sources don't consistently capitalize) should apply. Neither of them are poor arguments, and it is often not possible for us to arrive at 100% consistency with all style guidelines, because they can sometimes produce "conflicting consistencies", as it were (in this case, consistency with proper naming vs. consistency with lower-casing when in doubt). I will note that MOS:TM would not allow us to lower-case a trademark (a proper name) like "Macy's" to match its logo (which looks like "macy^★s") just because the company liked it that way. I.e., the interaction of MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS is to go with the upper-case consistency of proper names in English, not with the lower-casing consistency of "things not always capitalized in sources". But the proper-name argument about ethno-racial "color labels" isn't as strong as it is with regard to trademarks. In the end, we may simply need to add "(sometimes capitalized)" to the lead of the article on the term, if we're generally treating it lower-case, or "(sometimes not capitalized)" if the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: The claim that there's a general trend across English to capitalize "Black", in isolation, is simply not true. Associated Press Stylebook does this, so various US newspapers that follow it also do so. Some others have independently started doing it, too. However, The Washington Post capitalizes "Black" and "White", as do various others (some of which have been doing so since at least the 1980s). And yet others are sticking with lower-case across the board, especially non-US publications. Of those that use "Black but white", the vast majority of them are American. The style is an Americanism, a recentism, and a leftism all at once. This is not a new question/debate, it's simply become a louder one over the last year, and one that is not any closer to resolution than it was a generation ago. Probably further from resolution, actually, because the growing trend to capitalize both has been somewhat upset by sudden activism to capitalize only one of them. That it is socio-political activism (i.e., a WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem) is immediately apparent from the statements issued by the news organizations that chose to go with "Black but white" and put out a statement about it. Anyway, all of this is just rehash, since it all already covered in detail at the RfC and discussion surrounding it.

To the extent there's an administrative matter: Blaugraf should be warned away from making WP:GREATWRONGS-style arguments about what "is" "correct" in English (which has no official rules or rule-making body, unlike continental French and Spanish). How to write English on Wikipedia is determined by consensus in the MoS guidelines; it's why they exist. Personal dissatisfaction with a line-item in it here and there is something everyone at WP lives with (0% of editors agree with 100% of it, or any other guideline or policy for that matter). The last time we had someone pursuing this kind of "English must be written the way I say it must" stuff about an MoS matter, it led to a great deal of disruption, then a topic-ban, then a broader t-ban, then a block, then an indefinite block (mostly via WP:AE). Let's not go there again. But others involved need to be pointed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded. An WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude is not a rationale; have a discussion on the talk page about whether to use "black" or "Black" in that context (the the RfC result is a consensus that either are permissible, if used consistently), and remember that if it's "Black" then it also means using "White", and "black" means using "white" (in the ethno-racial senses). If anyone seems hellbent on editwarring and other disruption, leave {{subst:Ds/alert|mos}} on their talk page, and thereafter it can be more expediently addressed at AE, if it continues.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish - Thank you for explaining that the reason for capitalizing Black and White is that they are being used as demonyms, and that whether that is "correct" or "incorrect" is outside the scope of this discussion. (But dishonestly altering a talk page post is not outside the scope of this discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the last part refers to; there're probably aspects of this disputation that I've glossed over. I should be clear that I advocated at least mildly in the original RfC on this to prefer "Black and White", relying on the demonym rationale. I see that rationale in play across the site regularly. E.g., while I was editing animal breed articles, as is my wont, and going over the Florida Cracker cattle and Florida Cracker Horse articles in particular (which have different capitalization because of what the formal name of the standardized breed is, i.e., does it or does it not include the species word at the end?), and I noticed that Florida cracker, the article on the human [sub]culture namesake, was not capitalizing cracker. This stuck me as weird. (More on that in a moment.) Looking around further, I see that many similar epithets are capitalized. E.g., Kiwi for New Zealander is usually capitalized, as just one example. Another is that Coloured, in the southern African mixed-race ethnic sense, is almost universally capitalized. The more I look, the more I see a norm toward capitalization of such informal demonyms. Though in the course of looking, I do also come across additional exception like the cracker case. However, even that is not consistent and doesn't seem to represent a consensus. At the closely related Georgia cracker article, it's obvious that this was originally written capitalized (most of the article still is) then later moved to lower-case by someone, without any apparent discussion (there is no RM thread about this at either Talk:Florida cracker or Talk:Georgia cracker). This overall "capitalize them as (or serving as if) proper names" trend is why I've drafted language for MoS to this effect, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Overhauling MOS:CAPS#Peoples and their languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: a point so minor that it almost isn't worth mentioning – "Kiwi" is a noun, and so wouldn't exactly be comparable to adjectives like "white" and "black". You can be "a Kiwi", but no one is "a White", which probably effects whether or not people choose to capitalize it. Volteer1 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah. All these terms are regularly used as nouns and as adjectives: "his cute Kiwi accent", "police violence against Blacks and other minorities". Which terms are more apt to be used which way, which ones more often appear as singular nouns, etc., varies by term and dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize - I am only getting back to this after a long weekend. I edited something because I saw I had made a glaring mistake in my haste to type a response (typing country instead of continent). I do not understand why this generalrelative fellow wishes to ascribe some heinous motives to me, but it was exactly that - an error. I fixed it, and moved on. This is the indicative of the type of harassment I have been referring to herein. I wish to be left along by him, and yet he is intentionally trying to cast me as some villain. BlauGraf (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

BlauGraf, when you say trying to cast me as some villain, what specifically are you referring to? Believe it or not, throughout our interaction history, my goal has been to balance assuming good faith on your part and protecting Wikipedia from disruption.

And while it's nice that you've apologized, your response here makes it seem as though you do not recognize that it isn't okay to alter a comment after someone else has replied to it. This is even clearer on your talk page, where Nil Einne was kind enough to explain to you that our talk page guidelines require you to make sure you give a clear indication you have changed your comments if someone has already replied, especially when someone directly quoted something you said which are are modifying. Your response was to say I recognized a glaring error in typing, in my haste to make a reply, and I fixed it. The error was mine, and I corrected same. I am not sure what you are saying. No one is concerned about the error, but rather with the cover-up. And neither here nor there have you addressed Robert McClenon's concern about the fact that you altered his comment, which as he rightly points out is not a small thing. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah @BlauGraf:. Rules aside, I think basic human etiquette would suggest it's a problem if you correct a mistake which someone has already commented on without making it clear you did so. When you do that, it means to the casual observer, it looks like the other person is the one who made the mistake, not you. Per WP:AGF, I might assume you simply didn't notice that someone had replied to your comment. Except that you also modified someone else's comment. This makes it hard to assume you didn't notice people had replied, and it's an even worse problem. You need to take very great care when modifying someone's signed comment, there are a few limited cases and ways where this is acceptable, but this was very far from one of them. In this case, User:Robert McClenon has explained that they too were commenting on your error. Indeed, I actually read their comment around the time of my first reply, and I did not properly understand it precisely because you had already modified their comment, so it said something which is not what they actually said. You put words into their mouth so to speak, again basic human etiquette should tell you how wrong this is. You made a mistake. People may have made fun of you for it, but it's not a big deal. We all make mistakes. For some reason, instead of just acknowledging you made a mistake, you tried to re-write history which is why this is a big deal. You aren't being harassed. You are making major mistakes and then just brushing editor's aside when they tell you you did so. (Let me repeat the major mistake is not that you wrote country instead of continent which probably we all would have forgotten about by now and we definitely wouldn't care about. The major mistake is that you tried to make it seem like you didn't do so after people had already pointed out you did.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Side comment: If you feel a need to substantively change your own post after others have replied to it, try striking the "bad" material with <del>...</del> and adding the replacement text with <ins>...</ins>. Such revision markup is why those HTML elements exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Close with Warning

I originally said that I was not requesting administrative action. Then User:BlauGraf altered my words (in a way that made them not make any sense). I am now proposing that this discussion be closed with the only action being a warning that any future violations of talk page guidelines, even if they seem minor, may result in a block or other sanctions. Any discussion of the capitalization of demonyms can take place elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your suggestion, sir. I edited a mistake that I MADE, and I corrected. The mistake was mine, and I corrected it. You are acting as if I did something heinous, instead of recognizing a glaring oversight on my part - an oversight that you then attempted to malign me for. 2601:141:4100:EF50:2C82:B269:8266:EFE6 (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

Editing another user's comments is a very serious thing on Wikipedia. You are not being taken to task for editing your own comment (although it's considered poor form to do so after others have responded to it). You are being chided for editing someone else's comment (namely Robert McClenon's). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlauGraf - I am acting as if you did something seriously wrong because you did something seriously wrong. You altered my words in order to facilitate your coverup of what had been a minor error on your part. Altering my words, so as to make them make no sense, is not a small thing. That wasn't a mistake on your part. The reason why I am proposing that you be given a warning rather than a block is that blocks in Wikipedia are preventive and not punitive. This has its advantages and disadvantages, and one of the disadvantages is that permits flagrant misconduct such as yours to go unpunished, while you try to claim that you should not even be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlauGraf: How are someone else's comments your mistake? As long as you continue you speak such silliness, you have little hope of lasting here, that is definitely true. Your user page says you use to work for law enforcement. If someone being questioned said "Asia is a country" and then later an officer comments "You said Asia is a country, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia." then the person being questioned says sorry I meant to say "Asia is a continent"; do you then amend the record so that in the official transcript the first comment is "Asia is a country" with no foot note or any other explanation and the officer's comment becomes "You said Asia is a continent, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia."? If that's accepted practice under US law enforcement, no wonder things are so bad there. I'm fairly sure it's not though, not least because law enforcement officers will be up in arms if they're forced to look like idiots because it's acceptable to amend record to put words into their mouths. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have never worked in law enforcement, so I am simply not going to get into a massive debate here, let me simply turn you towards deposition "errata" sheets, where mistakes are corrected routinely. In this instance, I made a typo that I did not edit, and it was seized upon to insult my intelligence. It is obvious that you and your fellows are attempting to run me off. So I shall simply stop responding. BlauGraf (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

You and your friends seemed determined to drive me from this board, and I am very close to simply leaving, as you wish. However, I will say that the pattern of driving someone away with whom you disagree is frightening, and wrong. BlauGraf (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

So, to summarize: you did something bad, it has been explained to you very clearly what is wrong with it, and now instead of apologizing you are whining about how it's deeply frightening to be told not to do bad things. I'm sure you will be deeply missed. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for User:Tenebrae

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.

---

Following on from the ArbCom motion notified above, a few discussions are taking shape...

• At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Tenebrae, where at least two of us think the sanction (a topic ban) is insufficient.
• At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tenebrae, documenting the range of articles which Tenebrae has edited with an undeclared COI
• At Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP:OUTING and abusing the harassment policy to further a personal agenda., looking at the way Outing policy has hampered attempts by others to highlight the chronic COI problem.

This was all kicked off by an article in The Daily Dot. (To quote Arbitrator Beeblebrox at the COIN discussion: "We have advised the oversight team that after careful review, we do not believe linking to the article constitutes suppressible outing. The article includes Frank Lovece's denial that he is Tenebrae, and per WP:RSP the Daily Dot is considered a generally reliable source for internet culture. Whether any link to the article should be on-wiki is therefore purely an editorial decision. It really does not matter if Lovece and Tenebrae are the same person or not, the COI is manifest and well documented". Based on that, I think it's fair to include the link.)

The COI promotion of Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh has been going on for almost the entire 15 years of Tenebrae's presence here. During that time, a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. Tenebrae has been well aware that he has been breaking Wikipedia policy, and appears to have used Wikipedia policy to silence his critics. But even without any outing claims, as Beeblebrox says, the COI is manifest and well documented.

On the basis of his chronic abuse of Wikipedia for promotional COI purposes, I think a topic ban is insufficent. I propose a community ban for User:Tenebrae. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A sentence I meant to include but forgot: In my view, someone who has been so deceitful for so long, and has pushed the subjects of their COI so intensively, should not be trusted to work on any part of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I propose a community ban for User:Tenebrae. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until we have had chance to see whether the topic ban works or not. If not, then I'll happily agree. GiantSnowman 11:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Supportish If it is true that "a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. Tenebrae has been well aware that he has been breaking Wikipedia policy, and appears to have used Wikipedia policy to silence his critics." That is battleground beyond the pale, and no trust can now be given. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  There is evidence, but it's off-wiki at places that can't be linked. (Well, on-wiki too, but suppressed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban might be effective if it actually covered the breadth of the COI editing, but it does not, so cannot. Combined with the sheer egregiousness of the behaviour (15 years of persistent, consistent promotion) and compared with the somewhat light-weighted response (a t-ban which all but reads as encouraging an appeal in six months (yes I know that's a matter of interpretation, but that's how it will be read, and should have been far more robust: had it been, this discussion might not be necessary)) ban imposed by the community is appropriate. ——Serial 11:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I do not see a reason the community can not levy a wider topic ban rather than a community ban. Izno (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I understand a lack of appetite to do what the committee has explicitly not done. ——Serial 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  For clarification: our wording does not intend to encourage an appeal. ArbCom offers an appeal for essentially every action we take. It also does not mean we have to grant them. We hear a truly fabulous number of appeals each year and grant very few. Additionally, our topic ban does not preclude the community making a wider topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Captain Eek: per Drmies. ——Serial 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support what tips the scale over for me is the misusing of Wikipedia's inner processes to silence his critics. This behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative environment, and indeed battleground behavior beyond the pale. This is deception of large magnitude. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I won't formally 'support' this proposal, since I don't really consider it appropriate for someone who has been as inactive as I have been on Wikipedia for some years to do so. I would however point out that in addition to the other issues already mentioned, there seems to be strong circumstantial evidence (as noted in the Daily Dot article) of sockpuppet accounts being used by Tenebrae. He has previously admitted to editing as an IP in a manner that led to one previous block (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive) and there are a number of other named accounts and IPs which seem not only to have edited the same articles as Tenebrae (including i.e. the Lovece biography), but to have otherwise consistently edited in the same broader intersection of topics that Tenebrae did. It is probably pointless to start a formal sockpuppet investigation now (the IPs would certainly be 'stale') but this may also merit consideration here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Second this Like Andy I'm a long time from properly editing so won't interfere in the current management of the project by supporting or opposing. I do share the same concerns that if the likes of Skippu or Hal Raglan - which though stale appear to be socks of his - reappear or similar other accounts start showing the same traits then they should be investigated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. It may be worth looking at broadening the scope of the topic ban if Tenebrae doesn't take the hint, but his edits away from areas where he has (or appears to have) a close connection are constructive. People make bad judgements, and they do strange things when they feel threatened and sometimes it's difficult for them to back down. Give him some rope and maybe he'll see the error of his ways, or maybe he'll hang himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  From what I can tell, Tenebrae has had over 15 years of ROPE. I think that is quite enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support - What a mess this entire thing is, including the sanctions levied on community members who tried to bring this out in the past. ArbCom would be well advised to spend a little more energy on protecting editors who have nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart, as too often they get steamrolled. Protecting whistle-blowers is just as important as protecting editors from being outed, and both must be accommodated. In any case, from what I can determine from reading the Daily Dot article, the discussion at the ArbCom noticeboard, and some various other things, it seems to me that Tenebrae, whether o not they are the person that they are supposed to be, has used Wikipedia for their own purposes for a long time, and a CBAN is well-deserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying. Far too much dishonesty is tolerated here, and it creates a toxic environment. Just as we require reliable sources, we should also require reliable editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! — Ched (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Using a source that you or someone with a very close connection created to support wrongnaming someone is absolutely disgraceful behaviour and brings the project into disrepute. There can be no other solution but a ban. SmartSE (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• With great prejudice. ArbCom faltered. A topic ban isn't enough. This brings the project into disrepute. El_C 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we "faltered" at all. We did the part that had to be done by arbcom, an off-wiki private discussion about Tenebrae's conflict of interest. It involved both off-wiki websites and suppressed material, so there was no way to have a public case about that specific aspect. That opened the door to freer discussion that is going on now. There's nothing here the community can't decide for itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox, it's my contention that ArbCom's action was too soft. Not sure why the off-wiki facets of this serve as justification for this action not being potent enough. What about the on-wiki issues? That isn't to say the community can't handle this matter, either, but I do feel that invoking that explanation sidesteps my point. El_C 17:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Having thought about it some more, I think it was clear to ArbCom that there's enough information available publicly for the community to decide on the appropriate level of sanction. And ArbCom did the minimum they thought necessary, effectively passing it over to the community to take further if we wanted. I think ArbCom's action was good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I do think that an ArbCom block would have been the appropriate action here, which of course doesn't at all precludes it being followed by a community ban (we've seen such things before, I believe), but maybe I'm in the minority thinking the "minimum" was good enough. I don't feel I need to press the point further, though. This doesn't change my thinking that this is a good Committee batch, but I do think a more decisive action was called for in this case. For whatever that's worth. El_C 17:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• If we had done a full case and solicited evidence submissions from the community, I suspect we would have come to very different conclusions, but it's kind of hard to solicit evidence when you are discussing something privately. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I just presumed that with how long it took the Committee to investigate this, enough on-wiki evidence would have came up to remove any doubt. But maybe not...? Again, I don't see the need to press this further (further), though. El_C 17:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• very weak oppose in favour of a very broadly interpreted topic ban from anything to do with Frank Lovcae and/or Maitland McDonagh, in every namespace, that is strictly enforced. That would explicitly including adding them as a source, suggesting or commenting on their use as a source anywhere on Wikipedia, no editing of articles (or their talk pages) about or significantly covering them or their work or which make extensive use of either as a source (defined as more three or citations to works where one or both is listed as a contributor). There would be exactly three exceptions: (1) They may (but are obviously not required) to discuss their COI on their user and/or user talk page. (2) They may answer questions about their past edits, if explicitly asked. (3) To the extent necessary, they may discuss these topics as part of any permitted appeal of their restrictions. Any violation would result in a block, of at least 1 month, without further warning. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Support per Tenebrae in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019. starship.paint (exalt)

Tenebrae in 2009: [76] blatantly promotional article ... everyone has the responsibility to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please also note the policy at WP:COI. Tenebrae in 2010: [77] This article, whose virtually sole editor is the subject himself, suffered from extreme and extensive WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations Tenebrae in 2011: [78] Wikipedia admins take a very, very dim view of article subjects adding multiple links to their own sites. Read WP:COI. Tenebrae in 2012: [79] The editor ... is clearly involved ... when he or she created this article, has has added promotional content. I would strongly suggest that this editor cease attempting to use Wikipedia for ... promotional purposes, as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COI and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines Tenebrae in 2013: [80] blatant WP:TONE, WP:COI and POV vios Tenebrae in 2015: [81] This is some of the most blatantly COI editing I've ever seen on Wikipedia Tenebrae in 2016: [82] I would ask that COI editor not to edit-war Tenebrae in 2017: [83] apparently promotional COI editor. Tenebrae in 2019: [84] I'll see if the percentages of apparently COI contributions has changed since August 2014

• Support Abused Wikipedia for over a decade for own personal gain. What more can a person do to earn a ban? Valeince (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support without question. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. We issue topic bans for editors who get into trouble in a particular area. Users who abuse the encyclopedia and pull the wool over other editors' eyes for their own personal gain, we ban them. This is such a serious violation of everything we are supposed to stand for, there's only one answer. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• SUpport per others, above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies, and because I think there has already been enough ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a shocking violation of community standards by someone who repeatedly used accusations of COI against other people (probably correctly in most cases). Trust is gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies. Grandpallama (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support: as above. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long-term abuse of process and of trust by an experienced editor is not something that can be fully addressed by a simple topic ban. Meters (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Starship.paint, Drmies and others above. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong support after years upon years of tendentious, unethical COI editing, it is apparent that Tenebrae cannot be trusted to uphold some of the core tenets of Wikipedia and has no respect for WP:BLP (which is related to both his COI editing and other wild indiscretions.) Add to that the other problematic editing, when faced with criticism, often claims "I didn't do it!" despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, making any sort of attempt at collaboration a total time sink. VAXIDICAE💉 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Given the length and scope of the COI editing, if there was no ban here, I'd be hard-pressed to think of *any* situation that would call for one. This wasn't a simple oopsy-daisy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support He engaged in decades of unchecked, cynical COI editing. Someone who would engage in such a thing while manipulating process to avoid scrutiny (and get people blocked for whistleblowing) is not a person we want editing the encyclopedia. ♟♙ (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yikes. We've blocked others for much, much less. -FASTILY 23:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies, this level of COI editing warrants a ban. — csc^-1 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support we block or ban new editors for COI on the regular, so make it the same across the board. Considering this has been going on for as long as it has, there's really no excuse. Sro23 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per their responses in the section below. Also, please god make it stop. Arkon (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I do not know all the facts of the case yet to voice support or not, this is a lot to read, but the "If you look across my 155,000 edits, 99% of them have been constructive and useful" defense is seriously offputting. Like, "officer I drove without drinking 99 times, why are you giving me guff for #100?" ValarianB (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  They don't take away your license after one time. Tenebrae (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  That depends on your jurisdiction, how far over the limit you were, and any other circumstances (did you injure anyone, were you speeding, did you run any red lights, etc). In the UK, the starting point for the least serious drink driving offences is 12-16 months disqualification.[85] Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Tenebrae keeps talking about "one offense", but clearly the community is discussing multiple ongoing offenses over the course of 15 years. That Tenebrae won't admit to that is irrelevant, it's what the community thinks about it that matters -- but Tenebrae doesn't think this discussion is representative of the community, here he says of this discussion: "The group is composed virtually entirely of people I've been on opposite sides of RFCs with the past, people with a personal dislike...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well obviously the plural of anecdote is not data and the claim is "virtually entirely" not "entirely", but as a data point the only discussions (other than this one) that Tenebrae have both been involved with appear to be:

  1. This one
  2. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Tenebrae (where I express an opinion only about why Arbcom allowing for an appeal in six months is not inappropriate)
  3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Our Town St. James (where neither of us express particularly strong opinions)
  4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#COI article-space templates (where we both recommend deletion)
  5. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template (where we commented based on unrelated reasons)

  The only article page we have both edited within a year of each other is Melanie C [86] where Tenebrae added references (to UPI) 237 days after I reverted some vandalism. Hardly evidence of a personal dislike even if we were (sort of) on opposite sides of an RFC about template:Cquote. Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Anecodotally too, as the author of the proposal, I don't think I've ever interacted with Tenebrae anywhere, or ever edited the same articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Unfortunately, their responses below and in other noticeboard threads indicate that they don't understand the fundamental COI issues at stake here, so there's not really a basis for community trust at this point. DanCherek (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies. This level of continued deception is beyond the pale. Additionally, this comment mentioned in the article is absolutely disgusting. Nihlus 03:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as I would have rather seen Tenebrae given the opportunity to work with a topic ban on the COI topics, and I would also add the other articles from the COI thread to those as well. I saw his AN/I thread at the beginning of this year and declined to comment on it at that time, and I can't see this ending in anything other than a site ban, but my hope is that however unlikely it may seem at the moment, he can eventually make a return after admitting to any wrongdoing and commit to avoid further wrongdoing, and offer a heartfelt apology to specific editors he may have wronged and the community as a whole, accepting the ARBCOM topic ban and committing to working only on articles to which he has no professional or personal connection. BOZ (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support. Such disregard for policy for effectively their entire tenure cannot be overlooked. We've indef'd for much less. Anarchyte (talk • work) 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support for long term abuse of Wikipedia processes. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Tenebrae has abused the community's trust for far too long. Without trust, we cannot collaborate. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom did their job on this and the community has its work to do also. Full support, COI concerns using the wikipedia allows me to fully support a site ban. I wouldn't pile on but this is worth it for me. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - as has been said above, we've banned people for far less before. Tenebrae is clearly a net negative to the project what with seemingly using and abusing Wikipedia for personal gain, and seemingly not being on the same planet as the BLP policy. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Tenebrae)

• Has Tenebrae himself commented on this anywhere? – Joe (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Joe Roe I bet you're sorry now that you asked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I see nothing at Special:Contributions/Tenebrae. All I know of is a denial from Frank Lovece as reported in the Daily Dot article - "Reached by phone, Lovece denies any connection to the Wikipedia user Tenebrae". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  To which I'm sure Many Rice-Davies would have something to say... ——Serial

He commented in an edit revision on Talk:Frank Lovece:

Article was by banned user User:Hillbillyholiday, who had a history of personal clashes with me, cherrypicked selective information, ignoring whatever didn't fit his thesis, among other editorial lapses, and was a poor attempt at WP:OUTING. The subject in the article denied any connection

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• During that time, a number of editors have tried to address the problem and have been blocked for outing. Are there banned/retired-in-frustration editors owed an apology or reinstatement? Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Other than me Cloven Freak was indeffed, but Cloven Freak is the pseudonym used in the Wikipediocracy investigation, and is likely the comment referred to in the Daily Dot piece: "When Wikipediocracy asked if Tenebrae wrote the Drag Race story for Newsday, the edit was "oversighted," totally removed from the page history so that even administrators cannot view it.", so that doesn't count. Nola Carveth was blocked directly for bringing up Tenebrae on Jimbotalk in 2015, but again it was a throwaway account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I raised this problem about Tenebrae with several Admins from 2012 till I retired in 2015. I'm also named in the Daily Dot on that Basis. Although none were acted upon, my biggest gripe was that in one disagreement on X-Men: First Class he refused to engage citing that I had a COI - eventually to the point I submitted myself to a COI investigation and was cleared. Yet any time his COI was raised it was brushed away. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, using throwaway accounts to do things that you know perfectly well will get you blocked is exactly the wrong way to address a COI issue. This should have been caught and dealt with sooner, I think we can all see that, and it sounds like Mr. Jamieson here tried to do it the right way, it's unfortunate that that effort failed. (do you have links to any of those old discussions? Might be worth looking at for clues as to why this was not taken seriously) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking in from the outside, using throwaways or posting offsite seem to be the -only- avenues. Honestly a pretty perfect use of IAR. Arkon (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This. I bet that if the Daily Dot and Wikipediocracy articles were not written, Tenebrae would still have been able to continue what he was doing. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a broad description of the problem at RFC:COI, but any actual discussions I had took place off-wiki to avoid the potential pitfall. In the emails I still have, I addressed the problem with Dweller(in response to the original Demi Moore Talkpage issue) and Starblind (Which was in response to a later issue he was having with Tenebrae), but in those make reference to having passed more of the information to Alison and NewYorkBrad who I think like Dweller were heavily involved in the Demi Moore mediation. In that Demi Moore debate, I strongly suspected Tenebrae Socked as an IP to support his own position, but he repeatedly denied it. I think I asked AndytheGrump to contact me off-wiki about that potential socking, but nothing ultimately came of it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

At the very real risk of being attacked rather being engaged with as a normal human being, I'd like to ask for perspective. May we do that?

If you look across my 155,000 edits, 99% of them have been constructive and useful. I've created more than 100 articles about comics creators, plus popular articles such as the important List of African-American firsts. Please look at the support that this overwhelming bulk of my edits has gotten through the years. So suggesting that I was on Wikipedia solely for nefarious COI purposes is simply false, as any reasonably minded person can see via the objective, on-the-record Contributions page. A great deal of what I've done is RS-cite birthdates, birth names and birthplaces. (Additionally, you'll see many edits on the two named pages are neutral, non-contentious grammar and copy-editing and cite-formatting.)

Some of you are basing your judging on me as a human being based solely on 1% of my total output. I'd like to quote from WP:COI: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." (emphasis added).

And please note, too, that Lovece footnotes are in some cases the only RS source, to my knowledge, for certain things; if not, by all means replace them. But leaving BLP claims uncited because one journalist is being blackballed seems counterproductive. To my knowledge, David Schwimmer never directly said anywhere else that he was not related to Lacey Schwimmer and did not appear in Biloxi Blues. To my knowledge, Lori Loughlin had never personally clarified the conflicting claims of her birthplace. And though it's not a BLP article, there is no other source, to my knowledge, of the distributor of Belladonna of Sadness clarifying and explaining the myriad different running times of that movie. I'm not sure why we'd remove these kinds of facts and clarifications from Wikipedia.

So let's please have a dialog and not a crucifixion. I recognize some names as editors from whom I've taken a different side in RfC debates, so this strikes me as perhaps imbalanced. I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion, if that's alright with everyone. I'd like to believe it would be, and that this isn't being deliberately titled.

Thank you for listening. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

So no statement on the actual issue at hand here then? No comment on your alleged COI connection with Frank Lovece? That's what you need to address. What, if any, is your connection with Frank Lovece? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and re: "I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion, if that's alright with everyone." Nobody is stopping anybody from taking part here, but please be aware of WP:Canvassing (in case you haven't come across it before), which prohibits the solicitation of favoured contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What a pantload. "C'mon guys, I was on Wikipedia PARTLY for nefarious COI purposes!" DoubleCross (‡) 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, not to pile on, but to bolster Boing's query: please act with a modicum of grace on your way out and clear all of that up, once and for all, expressly so and for the record. El_C 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tenebrae, you've quoted the COI guideline out of context. Where it refers to someone having a COI as "a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith", it isn't referring to someone who acts as if he doesn't have that COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• A great deal of what I've done is RS-cite birthdates, birth names and birthplaces. you claim this an awful lot, but a quick look at your recent contributions show everything is not on the up and up with regard to WP:BLP, especially given your excessive citing and even replacement of RS with United Press International, which isn't inherently unreliable but the sources you're using are clearly not reviewed by any sort of editorial team and are clearly taken from Wikipedia itself.

• Zooey Deschanel-diff removing the TV guide source and replacing it with UPI
• Calvin Harris - diff adding UPI to the lead in lieu of the AllMusic site which is already sourced below
• Kelly Marie Tran - diff adding UPI when it's already sourced and has been for a year
• Sebastian Junger - diff adding UPI
• Lucy Boynton - diff adding UPI
• André Michelin - diff

I could continue but I'd hardly construe adding non-rs and replacing actual RS or adding non-rs and passing it off as RS in a BLP is not "good editing" and I'd expect someone with 155k edits to understand how to actually identify a reliable source vs. one that is clearly circular and copied from Wikipedia. VAXIDICAE💉 21:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, let me remind you of some things you said to me in January.

Conflict of interest has never been an issue in my 15 years on Wikipedia — where, unfortunately, those years have been the occasional incident of obsessive editors attempting to "dig up dirt" on someone who articulately disagrees with them, and who throw any evidence-free allegation they can think up. The past couple of weeks have seen these same editors falsely accuse me of WP:3RR and sock-puppetry, both investigations of which were quickly quashed by admins who immediately saw right through them. My edits and my character have withstood similar scrutiny in past such attacks, and believe me, any actual COI would have been uncovered long, long ago.

And:

...corny as you might think, I have the integrity and ethics that come from years in my profession, and I would never commit nor countenance conflict of interest. Period.

Nuff said. Mo Billings (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 (Tenebrae)

Tenebrae writes above that "Lovece footnotes are in some cases the only RS source, to my knowledge, for certain things". A statement which might possibly sometimes be true, though I have to question, after looking at this [87] particular edit, whether Tenebrae actually understands what 'RS' means. Tenebrae cites his favourite source from an article written in 1977. Lovece was born in 1958. The article cited (no longer online at the original URL, but available in an archived form) is from a fanzine (Tenebrae states this in the edit summary). An article written by someone aged nineteen or so. Even ignoring any possible CoI issues, that isn't remotely 'RS' for anything. Tenerbrae routinely hectors others about the need for 'RS' (see his edit summaries), but has a self-evident blind spot when it comes to a source which he seems to have an as-yet unexplained entirely inordinate preference for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Any of us, obviously, are free to replace any edit they want to. My sole concern is that BLP claims and niche claims like the running times of newly restored cuts of obscure art films be RS cited, no matter by who. If you can find other RS cites, go for it. Of course. Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you think that a nineteen-year-old writing in a fanzine should be seen as RS. As for BLP claims, I'm personally of the belief that biographies which are heavily dependent on material which cannot be found in more than a single source are generally a bad idea. That isn't Wikipedia policy though, obviously.

In any case, the proposal here isn't to remove every single citation to Lovece from Wikipedia. Instead, any edits to article space are, as I understand it, intended instead to rectify the undue prominence Lovece (and his employers) have been given by the selective inclusion of material which could equally have been cited elsewhere. And also intended to rectify situations where RS policy seems not to have been appropriately applied. If Lovece (as an adult journalist) is a valid source for anything (I have no particular reason to think he can't be cited for some things), he can be used. Like any other source, where appropriate, in a non-partisan manner. By editors who don't raise concerns about CoI editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae: I'd like to see some of my many collaborative colleagues join this discussion - you betrayed every single one of them. starship.paint (exalt) 23:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

So, I see ... no good faith discussion but snottiness and attacks. That comment "C'mon guys, I was on Wikipedia PARTLY for nefarious COI purposes!" snarkily and unfairly ignores more than 154,000 edits to falsely make it seem that a statistically insignificant 1% or less of problematic edits is the only thing in the world.

And to clarify: Stating an WP:RS-cited objective fact about someone you may or may not know is not a conflict of interest. Objective facts are objective facts. If I were to cite that someone I knew wrote a book, and I list it in the bibliography with the publisher, isbn # etc., that is not a conflict of interest.

I'm interested in something one person said, which was effectively, "Sure, invite anyone you want. But don't invite them — that's canvassing." Quite a catch-22. How about if I invite solely editors who have commented on my talk page, whoever they are, friend or foe. Would that satisfy any concerns?

And as a side note, someone said, "It's obvious that United Press International, a decades-old journalistic institution is a mirror of Wikipedia." Is there any proof of that? UPI was doing "This Day in History" long before there was Wikipedia. They have news bureaus all over the world, and access to every standard database, such as voter-registration records.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So posting this nonsense on my talk page and WT:Verifiability wasn't enough forum shopping, you also do it here? I explain very clearly on my talk page why that specific instance is not an RS and if you can't understand what WP:CIRCULAR is and how it applies when this is literally just taken from our own article you're just reinforcing my strong support for your site ban and ban from all BLPS. And for clarification since you like to misrepresent what people say, I said that piece was circular, I never said all of UPI is. VAXIDICAE💉 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that because Wikipedia has a page of dates that UPI must have swiped that date from us? That UPI has no other resources and has to swipe from Wikipedia? What about the Associated Press or ABC News? Are we to assume that any news organization providing This Day in History dates swipes it from Wikipedia? That seems like a personal assumption without any proof. I've seen WP:CIRCULAR sites where there's a credit line: "Source: Wikipedia." I'm not seeing that at UPI, AP or ABC News.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That is literally not what I said, but if you keep up this intentionally misleading editing claiming I said things like " "It's obvious that United Press International, a decades-old journalistic institution is a mirror of Wikipedia."", you'll probably get blocked sooner than this thread gets closed. Tenebrae, if you want to discuss my edits, the place isn't here. Make another thread at the appropriate noticeboard but let me reiterate that if you intentionally misquote me again, I will be asking for an immediate block. VAXIDICAE💉 00:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And does everyone see this? Uncivil threats. The language I'm seeing here is not that of a dispassionate discussion but of people with a personal dislike who feel free to hurl insults and make threats. As for this person's particular point, you said, without proof, that UPI swipes from that Wikipedia page of dates that you linked to. You cited WP:CIRCULAR, which says don't link to mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting what you said. But that's neither here not there — I haven't touch your reverts of UPI, and all I did was ask questions. But hate being what it is, even something as innocent as asking questions elicits threats.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A statement of fact is not a threat. Your ability to become the victim in any discussion is really remarkable, almost magical. You should figure out a way to monetize it. VAXIDICAE💉 00:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See what I mean about hurling insult and sarcasm and not not engaging in constructive dialog? That was in lieu of addrssing my point: "[Y]ou said, without proof, that UPI swipes from that Wikipedia page of dates that you linked to. You cited WP:CIRCULAR, which says don't link to mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting what you said."--Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I literally provided it no less than 3 times, on my own talk page when Ponyo thanked me for removing the non-RS, in response to you here and on WT:Verifiability. But again, this isn't about me, you need to stay on topic. You're welcome to open a thread about my editing, but if you continue carrying on here, I'll just ignore you. VAXIDICAE💉 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a major problem with comparing United Press International in the 21st century with Associated Press and ABC News. UPI has been in a long, sad decline for at least 40 years and is a flickering shadow of its former self. It is now owned by the Unification Church. It no longer has a White House correspondent or a United Nations correspondent on staff. It makes no attempt to cover general news but is struggling to survive by providing "national security" coverage to other highly biased outlets like Newsmax after losing contracts with thousands of mainstream news outlets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean "Sure, invite anyone you want. But don't invite them — that's canvassing." I meant we are not stopping your collaborative colleagues from choosing to comment here of their own accord, but that you must not invite them. As for editors who have commented on your talk page, there is already a notification there of this discussion and its title is linked so it should be pretty obvious what it is about. I suspect any approach by you would be seen as a violation of canvassing policy - but others might comment here if they disagree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how the people with a personal dislike of me would go to the trouble of seeking this out, and my more collegial colleagues may have no idea this is happening, that makes this rather one-sided.

And even for though who dislike me, can you honestly say that the more than 150,000 edits I've made and the more than 200 articles created have not been beneficial to Wikipedia? Seriously — greats like George Tuska and Joe Maneely had no articles. List of African-American firsts is an important thing for this encyclopedia to have. Just in the last week or so, while everything's going on, I uncovered an essentially lost Tony Curtis movie, The Last of Philip Banter (film) and created an article for that. I can't go over every single one of my tens of thousands of edits, but to say the 1% or less that are at issue means that other the 99% of good and sometimes even important contributions means nothing — that's not right.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Take this how you like, and maybe I shouldn't say it at all, but perhaps it might be worth reflecting on why someone who edits largely in regard to mass-media entertainment material and personalities, as opposed say middle-eastern politics or climate change, should need to have to worry about "people with a personal dislike" of them to the extent that it could become an issue. There are topics where attracting enemies is inevitable (I should know, I edited a few myself in the days when I was here more regularly), but that really shouldn't be happening in the fields you have generally confined to editing within. There will be disputes about policy, and about the inclusion of specific content, certainly, even in the least-controversial of subjects, but if you are finding "personal dislike" as opposed to simple disagreement to be a problem, maybe you should ask yourself where exactly the problem lies, and whether it isn't perhaps closer to home than you'd want to admit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think you've seen that the language being used here seems less than town-hall civil. Just the fact no one will acknowledge the more than 150,000 useful, productive, constructive edits I've made, as if they've all disappeared or don't matter, suggests to me this is less about my work and more a personal vendetta. I think a more well-rounded community would recognize the good and suggest WP:CLEANSLATE or something similar, rather than immediately going for the nuclear option.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't RFA question 2, and you're not being asked about your best contributions to Wikipedia. The questions that you have been asked are about your pattern of COI editing, and continued evasion isn't helping the snowballing of support !votes. DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to acknowledge that you have made some very beneficial contributions to Wikipedia - and that makes this whole affair even more disappointing for me. But no amount of good contributions renders WP:COI policy inapplicable to you. And when you have been in breach of a key Wikipedia policy literally for years, *that* is the thing that you need to address in any discussion of that breach. As for a clean start, that can not happen if you do not face up to what you have been doing wrong. You steadfastly fail to do that, and instead blame it all on people who dislike you. (And for the record, as the author of this proposal, I have no reason whatsoever to dislike you.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and still no comment on whether you actually do or do not have a connection with Frank Lovece? Continued evasiveness will not help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

How about a 'good faith' explanation for why you have chosen to cite Lovece as a source so frequently? Along with an explanation for why you think that a nineteen-year-old Lovece writing in a fanzine should be seen as a source for 'objective fact', per the edit of yours I linked above? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 (Tenebrae)

I've cited Don Markstein and Jerry Bails probably more times. I've cited Ron Goulart and David Hajdu and Les Daniels multiple times as well. As I explained at ARBCOM, when a generation of journalists comes up together, we know each other or, mostly, we know each other's work. If I wrote more about music, I'd be citing my peers Jim Farber, Ira Robbins and Jon Pareles.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy at WP:PRIVACY/WP:OUTING advises, "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." Asking someone to out themselves is improper.

And as I said above, if you have an issue with any particular cite, then substitute a better cite. Or, in the case of non-BLP claims, remove the cite and add a "citation needed" tag. No one's edits are perfect — neither mine nor yours — and I've even replaced cites I made in, say, 2006 with a cite in, say, 2010. Incidentally, lots of early comics history, before comics scholarship became a thing, is cited to fanzines, including the original Alter Ego and The Comics Reader — many of which contain interviews with comics creators like Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and Dick Ayers. I believe Doctor Strange has a cite to Ditko telling an a mid-1960s fanzine something historic. Nothing inherently wrong with fanzines. And as I said, if any given cite doesn't work for you, sub another or "cn" it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are citing WP:OUTING out of context there, but whatever. How about answering this question. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states that "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". ArbCom seems to have ruled that you have been editing in a manner which runs contrary to that. Do you contend that ArbCom's conclusions regarding this are false? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING does not give you a free pass from WP:COI policy. It doesn't mean you don't need to declare a conflict of interest if that would involve self-identification, but that you *must not* edit in a conflicted area or manner if you are not willing to identify your conflict. And the COI is not only about citing Lovece. It's about getting his name into article content wherever you can - "Frank Lovece says...", "According to Frank Lovece...", etc. It's about writing his BLP article. It's about contributing to his spouse's BLP article. It's about inserting his spouse's name wherever you can. It's about intermingling Lovece's journalistic interactions with your Wikipedia editing and making them two prongs of the same work. Tenebrae wants to deadname someone (clearly against considerable community opposition) and uses Lovece citations for the purpose without declaring any connections. That is not acceptable if you have that connection. Disinterested editors can cite Lovece all they want, but if you have a personal connection with him then *you* can not do so without declaring your COI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, can I ask if you have any connection to User:Hal Raglan? I note that Hal Raglan is the author of Maitland McDonagh and Tenebrae (film), and also has a username related to the horror movie genre. It might be just coincidence, of course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally dug out my old notes from 2012 which were filed away on a backup hard-drive. Despite my comment above, in my notes I have User:Hal Raglan as a meat puppet, as I couldn't confirm it as a Sock despite the similar behaviour. My most likely guess if that's true would be the subject of the article created. I also had Howard Drake and User:Horkana likely to be similar. I did have User:Skippu as a Sock along with User:JimCorrigan plus 24 IP Addresses though, some of which absolutely out the editor. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I did notice User talk:Hal Raglan#Promotiion of Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh, but the author of it, User:Nola Carveth, was one of the throwaway accounts that was blocked and had their edits suppressed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record the Nola Carveth account isn't anything to do with me, and everyone I think I've spoken to was in a raised position to have marshalled this without a throwaway account. I also wasn't editing much at the time as I was primarily on mobile and the interface at that time was terrible on mobiles so wasn't even aware that it had been raised. Since finding out it was raised (via wikipediocracy) Nola Carveth's identity has interested me. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Observation: When someone gets caught doing something like this, do they ever actually comment on the important questions to anyone's satisfaction? I don't believe I have ever seen that happen, and I don't think it will here either. 2001:4898:80E8:A:8E84:23BB:8A74:14CA (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No. You're right. Guilty or innocent, this sort of thread is the most horrible thing a Wikipedist can endure. The mind runs and hides. Denial sets in. Panic takes over. No, it is likely impossible to deal with accusations like this. And how does one defend oneself against such a charge? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

“Bentonville” entry error

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

---

This sentence from “Bentonville” history is incomplete.

Although no Civil War battles were fought inside Bentonville, the city was occupied by both armies and saw almost all of its buildings burned, either by Union soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.105.186 (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This is probably best discussed at that articles talk page rather than here. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mention Special:Diff/1009646012 when you get to the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves

Siamese fighting fish move to Betta splendens without any discussion, this person AW move the page without any discussion. and idk how to move page with history, can someone move it back to Siamese fighting fish Lalalulilalia (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a good case for a move request. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sabotage in Article Peyman Keshavarzi, by Praxidicae

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

---

I was adding resources to the article, the user reverses my editing without even looking at the sources, and is looking for an editing war. Stop this vicious user once and for all, who ruins all my efforts with the push of a button. Note that I added authoritative sources to the article and the user did not even look at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:9016:5B3E:540:A83C:A545:FE33 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And he continues to sabotage again and no one stops him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:9016:5B3E:540:A83C:A545:FE33 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a he but this user is a long term abuser, see User:ArmanAfifeh. VAXIDICAE💉 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And now this IP is globally blocked, so this should probably be closed. VAXIDICAE💉 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Editors are invited to provide feedback in the discretionary sanctions community consultation, which is open until April 25, 2021.

This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's revision process for the discretionary sanctions procedure, which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Brinja People

I want to set up a page for the Brinja People and to be able the add to it see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples#Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josu1 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Josu1: Good morning, Josu1. Consider using WP:Articles for creation to start your article. Ask the kind people at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any questions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aimee Challenor

More eyes desired at Aimee Challenor, where the pageviews went from <200 a day to... how many?! (110,000 yesterday). From what I can tell (which is not necessarily the full picture) it's Graham Linehan inciting everyone's favourite type of user, a furious reddit dot com poster, to form a mob over some Extremely Important Reddit Drama. Only source about this as of time of writing is The Spectator, not good for factual claims per WP:RSP. The sexual abuse committed by Challenor's father, and partner's tweets, however, are covered widely. Just want more eyes to look at edits as they come in as all new edits are BLP-sensitive and will be widely seen even if they only last for an hour, and to handle anything that's reaching revdel proportions. — Bilorv (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all over the front page of reddit, I doubt Linehan is a significant factor. The main issue is that reddit has attempted to oversight her name, and there's been a subsequent Streisand effect, with many major subreddits temporarily shutting down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It started with Linehan's blog. I don't know or really care about the rest of the context, other than that it sounds like it could become big news, but it is not that big news yet. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not where it started. It started when a moderator of /r/ukpolitics was banned for linking to an article in the Spectator magazine where, tangentially, a Reddit admin was named. The article didn't refer to the person as a Reddit admin and the moderator was unaware of the fact. In response to the banning, the other ukpolitics mods turned the subreddit private while they found out what had happened. Other subreddits also went private in solidarity. Yes, Linehan has picked up on it because of course he has, but that's not where it started. 217.38.56.218 (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Started is probably the wrong word, but it seems likely difficult to determine what role any particular outlet or whatever played in this. You could rule out certain stuff based on timings, but otherwise, how much of it was organic and how much of it was a result of promotion by others I doubt we'll ever know. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I looked into this better an Bilorv's comments seem fair enough and the IP is just wrong. Linehan was posting about this long before the Reddit stuff blew up. While it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure why anyone did any particular thing, it's clear Linehan didn't just pick up on it, he was already involved. Notably, even if the ukpolitics posting was unrelated to Linehan in any way, from what Reddit said it seems like there's a fair chance part of the reason for their reaction was because there was already concerns on their part due to what Linehan had been doing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Admin backs admin. Film at 11. 217.38.56.218 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly 0 of the people in this discussion are administrators. Try again? --JBL (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• More eyes on the article is what was requested and is what it got. Where the furore began off-wiki is of no importance here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Ethics again

• Goddard2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IrelandCork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Uchar-hadji (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User Goddard2000 answers with direct attacks and insults towards me such as "it sounds idiotic", and "your hypocrisy", not the first time. - diff.--IrelandCork (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - (Link to previous admin board). I would like to discuss a possible 1 month t-ban for both users. They have both been in the wrong and they both have been unofficially warned by other editors. This is now just disruptive editing. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all i never said you were idiotic, i said that the idea of there being NO Chechens in Aksay during the post you linked was idiotic since i posted several sources. It might have sounded more harsher than i intended so i will refrain from using such words in the future. My bad. Hello Elijahandskip, I see no reason to ban either of us to be honest. Despite this hiccup we are making progress in the talk page and Calthinus has several times mediated and helped us come to a conclusion. We have already come to an agreement on 1 of the pages we disagreed on > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aukh and now the last one is in Uchar-Hadzhi which IrelandCork linked. Calthinius is looking over the sources and will make a decision soon. What if me, IrelandCork and Krackduck just dont write in that talk page anymore and let Calthinuis make his decision? then be on our way. --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont know if you have read our discussions but surely a 1 month ban wouldn't be fair? Calthinus has been following our discussion very closely and i think it would be fair to have his input since he has probably read everything and is an unbiased mediator, wouldn't you agree? Elijahandskip --Goddard2000 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a bit of disruptive conduct, as Calthinus noted on the 18th, on the part of all. But on the surface much of this may be a product of inexperience on the part of all three users (IrelandCork, Krackduck and Goddard2000). I therefore gave a welcome message + DS/EE alert to all three. I've also warned (here) IrelandCork and Krackduck against adding comments inside of Goddard2000's own signed comments, which Goddard2000 rightly complained about multiple times (yet to no avail).

My recommendation would be for all three to take a serious break from the page and gain some experience elsewhere, but I doubt that they'll go for that right now, as at least one side will probably feel too strongly about anything left outstanding. So, I will say this. Tone it down, please, all of you. There are dispute resolution requests you may avail yourself of when you reach an impasse on the article talk page, like WP:RFC or WP:RSN. And try to be more concise, so as to make such outside input into the content dispute more likely. El_C 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with El C. A break is definitely in order. Goddard2000 I suggested the 1 month T-ban (short for topic ban) as a way to force a break from the page. I am fine not doing a topic ban as long as all three editors don’t edit it for a while. A while doesn’t mean a week...it means 3+ weeks. I don’t know what your interests are in, in terms of editing Wikipedia, but if you want something that is completely different, feel free to join me on the Current event WikiProject. Either way, all 3 editors, Goddard2000, IrelandCork, & Krackduck should take a break from the page and if you can’t then a 1 month T-Ban should be handed out. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll just note that, as far as WP:ACDS WP:TBANs go, I rarely set these to be less than 3 months at minimum. El_C 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip Yes i agree, lets leave it up to Calthinius on that page, we have nothing more to add. I will only post in the talk page if Calthinius asks me a question regarding the sources i posted. I wont talk to Krakduck or Irelandcork. --Goddard2000 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on restriction. But I'm rather surprised that WP:Ethics request is turned into content dispute again. It's completely another issue. Baseless comments like "idiotic" and "hypocrisy" and "you're presenting me Nazi" from an aggressive editor who barely keeps himself from swearing here are unacceptable. Besides, Elijahandskip, El_C, Calthinus, I gave Goddard's diffs with inappropriate behavior, two times, but being accused of it myself, wasn't referred to my inappropriateness even ones. Please kindly refer me to one so that I get what I've done wrong and what makes possible for you to ignore such harsh comments from the opponent.--IrelandCork (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, as mentioned, it's best to move on from these grievances at this point. Also, I've joined in 2004 and became an admin in 2005, and I've never knew WP:ETHICS existed. Not sure what you're trying to say by invoking it (unethical behaviour?), but whatever it is, it isn't what the page is for. As it says at the top: This page is intended to serve as an index or collection of essays. It is not a policy or a guideline. El_C 06:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C Sorry, it's not a grievance. I only wanted to understand what's the accusation based on and what exactly was wrong, so that I refrain from such in the future. Regarding WP:Ethics, I did not expect it's OK here to declare someone a "hypocrite, Nazi-caller", and one's words as "idiotic", in some other Wikipedia's, such as Russian, there are very strong policies of discussion etiquette. I wonder if I called him a hypocrite, a Nazi and an idiot, how it would be possible to be tolerated, for me it's just unacceptable, but that user took that disdainful tone as a rule of thumb. Obviously none will be happy to ever engage with him after such.--IrelandCork (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, the fact that you double-down on repeating these grievances (or whatever you call them) as a response to my message raises all sort of red flags for me, tbh. El_C 11:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@IrelandCork:, right now would be a perfect time for you to drop the stick so you shoot yourself in the foot. Knowing an admin said "red flags for me" in the previous message, any more messages about the topic will probably be things you "shot yourself in the foot" on and you will regret those edits for a long time...talking from experience. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I also just discovered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goddard2000, which was started by IrelandCork on March 17. El C, You might want to close it or investigate it farther. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip sorry, I don't get it at all. The last request was about showing me where my wrongdoing took place, to understand and to avoid such in the future. I've not insulted anyone, wasn't aggressive, disputed only one exact content issue, and tolerated repeated insults, but instead I get more and more warnings, and the root cause is still unknown. If it's difficult to show a diff, I'll be very grateful if at least a quote is given--IrelandCork (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Negative, IrelandCork, you are not blameless, and the more you WP:NOTTHEM it up, the worse it looks for you. You (and Krackduck) intruded into Goddard2000's signed comments repeatedly (despite them rightly protesting against that violation), which is aggressive, whether you were aware of it at the time or not. But now you definitely ought to be and not pretend as if it didn't happen. El_C 13:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I get it, even though it was quite a bit later than I was initially accused in smth., but let's leave it there. Thanks for taking time to explain!--IrelandCork (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hostilities resumed at WP:ANI#Multiple insults and personal attacks (permalink). That stick didn't stay dropped for long. Cabayi (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

The final decision in the RexxS arbitration case has been made and the case subsequently was closed. The final decision is viewable on the main case page. One remedy was passed as part of the final decision, which is included below:

• RexxS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts

Thread retitled from "Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts".

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

---

There are two closes under discussion.

The first is the Squad (app) DRV. The AfD was closed as delete, but Cunard suggested a redirect/merge toward the end of the discussion. during the course of the discussion, Cunard merged the content to another articl. cunard then asked that the article history be restored for attribution. When the deleting administrator declined, Cunard brought the DRV asking that the history be restored underneath a redirect. King of Hearts closed the DRV by restoring the article history and creating a redirect. Participants in the following discussion generally agree that the wording of the close could be improved, but they do not come to a consensus on what to do about it.

There is consensus that the AfD did not forbid creating a redirect, and so the crux of the discussion was whether King of Hearts acted appropriately in restoring the page history. Participants advocating to overturn KoH's close argue that it is not. KoH could have created a redirect over the deleted page, but should not have restored the history. There is a rough consensus against this view however. Some participants argue that it was an appropriate restoration as it helps comply with attribution requirements. Others argue that attribution in the edit summary is sufficient, but some participants point to an ongoing RfC to counter that claim. That RfC asks whether hyperlinks are sufficient attribution, and reading through the current discussion, there seems to be a general community preference for using hyperlinks and retaining page histories of pages copied elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Hyperlink). Regardless of where consensus is on that point, a number of editors point to WP:NOTBURO to argue against deleting the page history. These editors argue that even if the close was non-standard, the difference between a redirect with history and a delete-then-redirect is trivial, and from the reader's perspective, identical. For that reason, while KoH's close is not well articulated and outside of usual DRV practice, participants have not articualted a policy-based reason to delete the page history underneath the redirect.

The second close under discussion is the UA Flight 1175 DRV. Black Kite closed this discussion as delete, but Dhaluza later found information that might satisfy WP:N. They opened a DRV, asking that the page be undeleted. King of Hearts closed teh discussion as "restore without prejudice" allowing Dhaluza to work on the article while also allowing others to nominate the article for AfD again. SportingFlyer opened a second AfD which was closed as keep. Participants here generally find the closure within the bounds of admin discretion, likening it to a WP:REFUND request which states Deleted mainspace articles may be refunded back to mainspace. While it was made at the wrong venue, and KoH did not adequately articulate the rationale for undeletion, the procedural errors are not sufficient to overturn what would otherwise be an normal REFUND request.

While this discussion does not justify overturning either closure, editors generally agree that King of Hearts should take more care in closing discussions. Participants bring up previous discussions concerning KoH's closing, and note sporadic absences since 2014. Some suggest that KoH take more time to review changes in consensus and word closes more carefuly to avoid misunderstandings. On the other side, editors also criticize the time spent on minor complaints about procedure. Editors are reminded to consider the encyclopedic outcomes when challenging actions, and to avoid process for the sake of process when benefits to readers are negligible.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

---

After an unsuccessful attempt at discussion, I am seeking community review of two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

In the Squad case, I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate." In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a supervote). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from Squad (app) that now exists and with which I agree.

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they insist that "There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se". But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, in the United Airlines Flight 1175 case, Black Kite closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD." But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Wikipedia works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. Sandstein 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the participants in previous discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MER-C, Dial911, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Luciapop, Cunard, Mazurkevin, SmokeyJoe, S Marshall, Andrew Davidson, SportingFlyer, Hut 8.5, Stifle, Cuoxo, and Spartaz: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) and/or its deletion review. Sandstein 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite, Andy Dingley, SportingFlyer, Ansh666, Eherot, IJBall, Stormy clouds, A lad insane, Petebutt, Ahunt, Dannythewikiman, ZLEA, Mangoe, Jax 0677, Andrewgprout, Dfadden, George Ho, Dingruogu, Jetstreamer, AEMoreira042281, EnjoysButter, Champion, Davey2010, Donaldd23, DonFB, Icewhiz, and Samf4u: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175. Sandstein 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC) @Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG: I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. Sandstein 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Noting that I was left off of the notifications, not sure if anyone else was. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I may have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls far below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both look like super votes to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors TonyBallioni, PMC, ArnoldReinhold, HighKing, and JBL: [88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]. I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – Joe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like Sandstein I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. Dial911 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it could be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)) as WP:AIRCRASH ones often do. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. That being said, I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the Squad (app) DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the words used rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but WP:UDP doesn't support this claim (nor does Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. Fram (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  It looks like this practice is supported by consensus, but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  You have more people here in this discussion saying that it isn't OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --Jayron32 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  The 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion was about how to handle discussions where the community consensus was to redirect an article. That doesn't apply here. But you already knew that. So I'm not exactly sure why you brought it up, since you already knew it was about a different situation than the one we are discussing today. --Jayron32 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. Black Kite (talk)

  So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  King of Hearts, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. Sandstein 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is primarily about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history to turn it into a redirect is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --Jayron32 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.

  King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app). King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and the 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

  Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator MER-C (talk · contribs) redirected Squad (app) to Twitter with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, Squad (app) would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) as "delete", I could have requested at WP:REFUND that Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app). Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• King of Hearts' close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 accurately assessed the consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cunard The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_46#RFC:_delete_and_redirect was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be WP:REFUNDed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed. Squad (app) was proposed to be converted into a redirect, and the RfC consensus was that the standard practice should not be to delete article histories when a conversion happens (or is proposed with no one explaining why a redirect should not be made). The article history should be deleted only when there is a BLP violation, copyright violation, or other reason that makes retaining the history undesirable. No such reason was presented at the AfD, so the history should have been retained.

  Since you note that a WP:REFUND would have been fine, to avoid these contentious discussions, I wish I did this instead of opening the DRV:

  1. After Squad (app) was deleted by the AfD, I should have requested that Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. After draftication, I would have completed the merge and redirected Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.
  Would this violate any policies? Additionally, if this ANI discussion results in the history of Squad (app) being deleted, would I be violating any policies if I did this:
  1. I ask at WP:REFUND for Squad (app) be draftified to Draft:Squad (app).
  2. I redirect Draft:Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. (I would not do a merge since the merge is already completed.)
  3. I redirect Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with an edit summary noting that the history is now at Draft:Squad (app) and that a merge has been completed.
  I think my proposed draftication approach would be compliant with WP:REFUND practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The merged material is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" I will not rewrite the merged content since it is properly attributed and meets the content policies. My comment was to ask whether a WP:REFUND is fine after an AfD is closed as "delete" so that I can do a merge. As long as I'm not violating any policies, for future AfDs, I plan to ask for WP:REFUNDs to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I supported and completed a merge at the AfD, I only wanted to improve Wikipedia. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• 1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to WP:REFUND. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE: Squad (app). I find this a little frustrating, there being a trivial root cause from which a number of non-ideal actions have resulted trying to fix the problem without addressing the root cause.

The root cause is the AfD nominator:

Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter. User:MER-C 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

failing WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD-M, seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-ideal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• RE United Airlines Flight 1175. I Endorse the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Wikipedia, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --agr (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into WP:Deletion policy, which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:ATD is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.
      In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Disagree with User:Stifle that Policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. Instead: Policy is merely a codification documentation of the community's ordinary preferred way to treat particular matters. And on Squad (app), there are multiple facets of non-preferred actions in this story, and falling back to policy as worded should be strongly recommended. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Review and pinged the AfD participants who had already commented. Two of the AfD participants switched from "delete" to "merge". None of the participants have opposed a merge or said the article history should be deleted.

      I am hopeful that participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) would have been supportive of a merge/redirect had they been pinged and had the AfD been relisted. I am particularly hopeful because the AfD nominator had previously considered an WP:ATD-R approach by redirecting Squad (app) to Twitter. The redirect was undone because Squad was not mentioned at Twitter. If the AfD nominator had known about List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, the AfD nominator likely would have redirected Squad to there. No arguments at the AfD were made against an WP:ATD-M so it is incorrect to say that the community had applied and rejected it for this AfD.

      I agree with you and agr that this is too much drama for a very trivial issue. In the future, instead of starting a DRV, I will request a WP:REFUND of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (my full plan here). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Cunard I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). SmokeyJoe There are already enough people whose main occupation at Wikipedia is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don’t think that relisting due to the raising of an obvious merge targets not yet mentioned is a weakness to gaming, it would be a positive feature. Is ATD-M policy or not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Obvious and useful merge targets, yes, absolutely. Any merge target? Not a good idea - we know how that will go. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I would leave that to a competent relister (and relister s must be qualified to close, including UNINVOLVED) to decide. In this case, the target was obscure, not easy to find by a content search for the title (squad), but obvious when discovered. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
            • So what are our expectations for delete !voters at AfD, then? Imagine that I'm reading an AfD and I agree that the article should be deleted. Should I type out: "Delete. I have been unable to identify a suitable merge target. I have considered the merge target proposed by editor A, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate. I have also been unable to identify a suitable redirect target. I have considered the redirect target proposed by editor B, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate." Or can I just type: "Delete" in the happy expectation that the closer will assume that I've read the preceding discussion with the right amount of care and attention and that I'm not a drooling idiot? Because if it's the former, then I think we have a problem with our processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
              • The answer is at WP:BEFORE, and in particular #C.4. The expectation is that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. Subsequent participants assume the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. When they say “delete” it is based on the assumption that there is no suitable merge target. When later someone brings up a suitable merge target, it reveals that the nominator did not do their duty, and that the other participants were working under a false assumption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I don't see it that way because, although ATD has the force of policy, BEFORE doesn't. It's not even a guideline. It's an information page, which editors are free to disregard, so when !voting we can't assume that BEFORE has been complied with. (And some editors are new. It's always good practice to check.)—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • We can’t assume the nominator has followed BEFORE, WP:Okay, and indeed, MER-C may have followed BEFORE point by point and just failed to find the kind of obscure merge target, and indeed, trying searching Wikipedia content for “squad” is not helpful. But, late in the AfD, once someone has raised an as yet unexpected but in-hindsight-obvious merge target, the earlier participants need that to be brought to their attention. What Cunard did was non-ideal. Closing regardless of the new information was non-ideal. Cunard and Sandstein not quickly and simply agreeing to a redirect with the history available was non-ideal. King of Hearts boldly imposing the obvious solution was non-ideal. And more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• The closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad_(app)_(closed) is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.
  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United_Airlines_Flight_1175_(closed) did not have consensus one way or another. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nosebagbear: I am sorry, I've possibly been unclear. The closure instructions say that a no consensus DRV must be closed as an overturn if the deletion was a speedy, and goes to closer discretion if it was an XFD. That was the distinction I was looking to make, not a question of new information or not. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sandstein on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed): They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Consensus does not trump the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license. King of Hearts was right in restoring it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's not correct, there is no need for the edit history to satisfy the Creative Commons licence. This edit does that. Hut 8.5 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Better to keep the history (even if the content of the revisions has to be deleted) as it keeps updated if usernames change and ensures any attributions using the "permanent link" still function. That could even be extended to other deleted pages where the reason for deletion is notability and content has been copied (or could be) to another site, not necessarily within Wikipedia. Pages without a potential redirect target would have to be moved somewhere and blanked. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still recommends just using the page name, but when that is done the link is broken when disambiguation is necessary or there is a new primary topic for the title, or when the source page is deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure about the 2nd example, but the first is pretty clearly a supervote. I'm not going to second guess his motivation, but the close doesn't represent the consensus as given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was pinged to this discussion by Joe Roe as someone who has raised a similar concern before. The discussion Joe Roe mentions that I was involved in ([99][100][101][102]) was very similar to the Squad (app) case that Sandstein raises above: the closure advanced an argument not defended in the discussion, and would have been more appropriate as a contribution to that discussion (rather than a closure). I think extracting consensus from a deletion discussion without injecting one's own views is a real skill; I think concern about KoH's mastery of this skill is legitimate. (I have on a few occasions looked through the list of overdue RfCs to try to help out, and quickly determined that I do not have this skill, FWIW.) I have not looked at the UA1175 case. --JBL (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is all this space (okay, at least half of it) *really* being wasted to discuss if a redirected article should have its history deleted or not? This is the course of action suggested by Peter James (without any bolding, but !votes and all that) in the DRV. I also suggested it as a possible (and likely best) way forward. No one in the DRV or AfD provided a policy-based reason why undeleting the history would make the encyclopedia worse. No one. And is anyone here going to really claim that deletion here is a better outcome than a redirect? Anyone? We got to the right place. I don't think there is an actual argument otherwise anyone has advanced (I'll note this hasn't gone to RfD...). The rest is process. Viva la WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I think I worded my rationale poorly, leading people to think I was supervoting (i.e. basing my closure on the AfD rather than the DRV), but what I meant to say was: The DRV "endorse" !voters failed to explain how the "delete" !voters in the AfD articulated a policy-based reason why the history must be removed. The sole rationale given for deletion was based on notability, not content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree. Restoring an article is a use of admin tools; a better justification is needed to WP:IAR for that than just "eh, what's the difference?" - especially since that works both ways; creating a new redirect would have been entirely in line with policy and would have correctly reflected both the consensus of the DRV and the consensus at the AfD. Furthermore, I absolutely think that deletion is a better outcome than a redirect; retaining history that is of no value means that any editor, at any time, could revert the redirect and restore material that was legitimately deleted via consensus on an AfD and whose deletion was unambiguously upheld in a DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? And yeah, they could also recreate the article. The only thing that would stop that is page protection. The history being there or not doesn't change that. But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. Yes, WP:REFUND exists, but lots of folks aren't familiar with that. And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? If so, doesn't that make the AfD votes flawed? If not, I invite you to send the redirect to RfD... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• How can you know that it will have no value? ... But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. ... And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? These are all arguments that seek to re-litigate the AFD (arguing that the deleted article may have value, arguing that it may become notable in the future, arguing for a redirect instead of deletion.) By making them, you are overtly requesting a WP:SUPERVOTE to override an AFD whose unambiguous consensus you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's try again. Do you feel having a redirect is wrong/improper to have here? If so, can you articulate a policy/guideline-based case? As far as I can tell, no one in the AfD provided even a statement that it would be bad to have a redirect, let alone a policy-based reason not to have one. AfD is not a vote. Strength of argument trumps numbers. And there are no arguments at all against the redirect. Further, the redirect is exactly the right thing to have here. There is no way it would be deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that the community understands what ATD is and how to apply it. In this case there was consensus that the article should go, that there was no objection to creating a redirect in its place, but that the page history should not be restored. All of this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a deletion discussion to reach. I don't think overruling it was a good idea, especially since DRV is the venue to go when you feel consensus has been overruled on a whim. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  If this is about Squad, there was no consensus on whether the history should be deleted, and no reason not to restore it as a redirect. The only apparent consensus was based on discussion before an alternative was suggested (and it's also common for editors to participate in WP:AFD without having read the comments already in the discussion or the guidelines they refer to in their own comments). Is there consensus that deletion of a page can only be reviewed to reconsider whether there should be a separate article? Can this be reviewed at deletion review or is it now necessary to request a new process? Peter James (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is simply the process for challenging whether Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed) was closed correctly. (and also another.). BEFORE and ATD-M are important arts of the story, but the real question is whether King of Hearts closed the DRV correctly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  The reason I gave very little weight to the "endorse" !voters as far as the edit history is concerned is that they simply stated that the AfD process was correctly carried out. Sure - but where has anyone advanced an argument as to why the content is unsuitable for public view? I think it gets to the crux of the matter: To prevent a merge/redirect, are "delete" !voters at AfD required to indicate why the content of an article needs to be suppressed, in addition to establishing why the subject is not notable? For me the answer is yes, and a satisfactory argument to that end has not been presented either at AfD or DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ultimately I just don't agree that "Overturn, participants should have made other arguments" is within the scope of DRV. It wouldn't be for DRV !voters, and it certainly isn't for a DRV closing statement. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse both DRV closes. In the first case, there were compelling legal reasons to preserve the history and these constiture a strong argument which overrides a headcount. In the other case, there was a reasonable consensus to restore the content to assist review of the new evidence and the close reflected this. Both closes were pragmatic and reasonable but should perhaps have been explained better to avoid this further discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, this looks like a disagreement over process that ignores the actual encyclopaedic outcome. I don't see a problem with King's actions. Good faith disputes over the procedural details can be resolved by one-to-one discussion. In short: guys, please discuss this over a $BEVERAGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• For Swarm, I think that there was enough support in the DRV for a redirect, along with extensive discussion on just how to carry it out , to justify the close. I and Cunard tend to be on opposite sides at deletion discussions more often than not, but I agree with what he did here and how he defended it. The close in the original afd did not take that sufficiently into account. A close should explicitly or implicitly take account of all reasonable alternativesthat have been suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For UA1175, the DRV close was correct. The consensus at the discussion was to allow re-creation (& that's just what I said at the time) DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- note that United Airlines flight 1175 AfD #2 was closed as keep. So the outcome of this should not change that without good reason. My read on this kerfuffle is that it's much to do about whether the history should be kept hidden. For the record, the history on United Airlines flight 1175 was not restored, and that needs to be fixed because I included some of the original content in the expanded article. As to WP:REFUND, I did consider whether to do that or DRv to get the original history restored, but REFUND says it is for "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator", while DRv is for new information, so I decided to go with the latter. But I think I should have asked for restoration to a redirect with history; this way I would have been able to add the new content on my own schedule, instead of having to stay up late to cram it into a restored article that was already back at AfD. Dhaluza (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I wasn't aware of this discussion until a few minutes ago, but at least one editor thinks a recent RfC I posted is related: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn Squad closure, Endorse United Airlines Flight closure. The Squad closure seems particularly egregious, but the United Airlines Flight closure seems within the realm of reasonable discretion, and not worthy of being overturned at AN. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think discussion is coming to a close; could somebody close this thread and take the necessary actions? Sandstein 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

DLive Moderators have a heavy political corporate bias and agenda

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 really am just showing again that over 4 normal people wanted to prove that your description of Dlive is laughably biased, and ignorant conspiracies. 4 people have been banned from editing in actual truth, while they keep painting the website as a white nationalist website when that is clearly not true at all. We have corrected the new actual appearance of the gaming website it is now, and the editors clearly keep painting it as a conspiracy website. Go there yourself and see, this has been edited 4 times by a certain group of far-left agenda type 'wikipedia editors' (who actually do not actually prove what they are saying except random blogs by 1 random reporter nobody knows) This is pathetic, and your website is now having active corporate entities with biased people, editing out truth to attack competition (dlive is clearly being attacked, i have no affiliation with it, just stating obvious facts as an independent voter) Thank you, please help keep the website not far-left agenda, it is becoming a haven for editors on this site to be more far left than center. It is reported in many websites, so please realize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.40.141.252 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Universal Code of Conduct open letter

A majority of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has signed the open letter from arbitration committees to the Board of Trustees on the Universal Code of Conduct. This follows a months-long drafting process between the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the arbitration committees of other projects. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Universal Code of Conduct open letter

Infoboxes, flags, et cetera

An uninvolved administrator would be welcome to look at the stalled discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flagicons_and_coats_of_arms_in_infoboxes and assess whether A) there is some consensus and B) whether any administrative actions are necessary (there's instances of edit-warring on some pages, for example). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And now I must sadly start pointing out that despite warnings to the contrary, one editor has repeatedly refused to get the point and been manifestly uncivil, notably by accusing other editors of being dishonest and disrespectful... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid inappropriate judgments. The issue is not as clear-cut as you present it here. Dragovit (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a need to have someone answer the question of what the images on the Wikimmedia Common, flagicons images and Templates:Country datas are for, when the few users systematically remove flagicons (flags and other symbols such as coats of arms) in infoboxes of several articles at once and block their addition based on the assumption that they are "disruptive", anachronistic etc, after when I read MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, I concluded that there is no rule that recommended or commanded their remove. If these users are right and proceeding correctly, then there is no point to doing several activities such as editing Templates:Country datas or participate in some Wikimedia Commons projects (flags, coats of arms etc), because it isn't possible to use them. The various articles are then in two different styles, some with flagicons and others without, so Wikipedia seems to me to be inconsistent. The details and arguments for and against are here: WikiProject Military history, which was later complicated such as by discussing about the appropriateness of using the one term. Dragovit (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What is correct venue for discussion of overturning a close of a talkpage thread?

So, an editor SNOW closed a discussion thread. (I think it was technically not an admin action, but de facto probably is), and I wish to contest this. But where? I thought that WP:Deletion review might be best? (Closing something down isn't exactly the same as deleting it, but kind of, and after all the people there are skilled particularly at assessing closes).

But then maybe it should be here? Or ANI? Or what? (DRV thread is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 27#Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Sensitive TFA images). Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Generally here (WP:AN). But it looks like the discussion is again open, so I'd say let it go for now. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK thanks. Yea that deletion review is moot anyway. Herostratus (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC rename

Just a heads-up, but there is/was a discussion to potentially rename WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to WP:Closure requests. The discussion has run a week but I thought giving notice to AN would allow for more voices before it gets closed. Please join the discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

immediate BLP protection needed

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

---

Could someone please protect the BLP Mizkif immediately? The vandalism is coming in every few seconds and it is impossible to revert to a clean version because of the continuous edit conflicts. Meters (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected by user:Hog Farm Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Eyes requested on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran...

...The site of an ongoing edit war. Thanks, GAB^gab 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected for a week and reverted to what I think is a pre-war version. No problem with correcting the version without asking me (and I will be off to bed in about half an hour anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about AIV and MDanielsBot

(Originally posted to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard (Old revision of Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard); moving here per recommendations)

Currently MDanielsBot clears the AIV board of reports anywhere from 4-8 hours old, as they are deemed stale. I certainly don't take filing reports there lightly, so I have become concerned when two reports I filed in the last month were cleared out without any apparent attention (Ds Abhishek, Special:Diff/1007893544; Nawzad Shekhany, Special:Diff/1014006514). In the former case, the user went on to post promotional content twice more before being blocked.

I realize this was probably deemed necessary because the board was being overloaded/abused with frivolous and/or illegitimate reports. My concern is that legit reports (particularly of spammers/self-promoters) are being wiped out without ever having been looked at. Is there no better way to manage the backlog? If an admin was able to tag the report with a template to say no action is required, no further explanation needed... or at least increase the time before the bot clears the report, to give more time to investigate... I'd at least have confidence that my reports are not being made in vain. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed at a more relevant venue like WT:AIV, or WP:AN, focusing mostly the question of what the bot should do, in an ideal world. After that's decided, Mdaniels5757 could be contacted to implement / update the bot to follow the new desired logic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We can tag reports with no-action required, it's just a lot of admins don't (or AIV is understaffed, a reasonable statement in modern days). I agree that this is not really the place to discuss it however. Izno (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note that MDaniels hasn't edited for two months, and his talk page says he is on a wiki break until December, so he may not be ready available to implement changes.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If the bot's operator is unavailable, I suggest the bot be blocked for the time being, and other methods be used to manage archiving. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO, a bot should only be blocked if its operator is unavailable and the bot is causing problems that the operator is not fixing (which does not seem to be the case here, yet—only if we get consensus that there is something to be done and the operator doesn't address it). There is a real issue with critical bots being maintained by one user who could disappear at any time. Many of these bots continue running without any problems and blocking them for reasons other than stopping a disruptive bot is not productive. Also, the fact that an operator hasn't edited in a couple months does not mean they are unavailable. Has an effort been made to contact him? (I can see MDaniels is active off-wiki, for what it's worth.) — The Earwig (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why blocking the bot is even being discussed. That would stop the bot's other tasks, too. The bot should (in theory) obey User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop if people really want to stop that one task. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• In my experience, the reports that MDanielsBot removes are almost always issues that aren't truly urgent, and at AIV we want to prioritize action on the more urgent reports (e.g. a vandal making dozens of edits in a short time frame) over the ones where the editor seems to have stopped vandalizing or spamming for the time being. The relevant policy is WP:PREVENTATIVE: Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved. If MDanielsBot removes your report, and you think that it still needs attention, then I would just add the report to WP:AIV again. Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is with those vandals who make one or two edits per day, for months on end. Blocking would clearly be WP:PREVENTATIVE. But unlike the "spree vandals", the matter is never exactly "urgent". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's fair, but I would claim that most reports of such accounts do get actioned successfully, and they only tend to slip through the cracks when AIV is backlogged, which is when we want to prioritize the more urgent requests anyway. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, I wasn't suggesting to disabling the bot; in fact I think it should run on WP:AIV/TB2 also. Just pointing out that not all matters are "urgent". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Meh, the bots don't typically get super upset, and run to your talkpage / noticeboards when you decline reports from them. Often times, that's why admins will decline to action reports. SQL^{Query me!} 01:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reason the bot exists is because admins don't like declining reports at AIV because it can get you yelled at, and no one likes to get yelled at. If a report has been there for 4-8 hours, as Mz7 says, it is definitionally not urgent and ongoing and doesn't meet the purpose of AIV. If you get a repeat spammer or someone who vandalizes once a month for 12 months straight, WP:ANI is a better place to file a report because it probably takes more than one sentence to explain.
  I'll also note that MDanielsBot isn't the first bot we've had that did this SQL ran SQLBot for a significant time before, and this is a replacement for that. Anyway, this looks to me like the bot is working as intended. If there's an issue that requires explanation, even if it's relatively simple, ANI is the best place to go. My rule of thumb is that if an issue takes more than one sentence to explain why someone should be blocked and anyone can see, AIV is not the right place to report. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, WP:SEP will always be a thing on a volunteer project. ANI would be the right place for low-rate vandals, were it not for the (mostly but not entirely non-admin) peanut gallery who will go immediately hunting through the reporter's contributions, for an opportunity to shout "WP:BOOMERANG! WP:BOOMERANG! WP:BOOMERANG!". Often based on a simple mistake, or some bizarre interpretation of policy. Maybe we need a page for "middle ground" reports. Oh, who am I kidding, it will just turn into another ANI. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong translation of "Российский" into English

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 word "Российский" is wrongly translated into English as "Russian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19D:300:9BF0:15A3:FEEE:60D5:EB02 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Igor Krutoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Chrystal_Copland

Hi Can someone please help me to edit this?

Thank you very much,

Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple velvet22 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Draft talk:Chrystal Copland

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.

Another case, this time Turkey

Now at WP:ANI#Mass-creating articles based on one unreliable source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has come to my attention that a large number of stub articles on Turkish placenames have been recently created (example at Alatarla, Oltu). They all seem to be taken from a single unverifable secondary source, and none of them have coordinates, though they do have population numbers. It's not the same editor (these were created by User:Lugnuts), but they present the same issues of review and potential cleanup. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC) I'm pretty sure this belongs on ANI. Also, if you want people to notice your complaint, it would be best to start a new section. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC) I agree, this seems to be a different story and is best discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC) I've been editing many of these articles and can verify that I haven't stumpled upon one that did not exist. Perhaps a better reference should have been used for population (like nufusune.com) but this is a separate issue. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC) OK, before people get their pitchforks ready, please DO NOT tar me with the same brush as the work done by Carlossuarez46. I started to work on the lists of populated places in X for Turkey a while back. The first list, and all the lists for places starting with A, had already been completed. So, with a bit of research into the existing articles, I started to set up new pages based on what I'd found. The source I've been using was already used in some of these articles. I don't add coordinates because I simply do not know where that data comes from, or how to add it correctly. However, The Anomebot2 has been adding coordinates to hundreds of these articles (I assume from their name, it's a bot...), and editor Deor has been adding maps too (example). From what I can tell, Carlossuarez46 created all the Iranian articles on here FIRST, and then they have been copied across other wikis afterwards, which seems to be the big problem based on the verifiability of the EN article. 99.99% of the Turkish articles I've created already exist on the Turkish WP, with the vast majority already existing on other wikis too (Kurdish, Armenian, German, etc). If you still think there's something wrong, or close to being a problem on the scale of Carlossuarez46's, then please get your evidence together, and log a new thread at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) The Anomebot2 adds {{coord missing}} templates; Deor added the coordinates (which are already in Turkish Wikipedia). Peter James (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks Peter. Thinking back now, I did not add that template to the first batch I created, but have done ever since, and then Anomebot2 adds the coordinates (another example). Thanks again! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) The problem, Lugnuts, like I said in the ANI discussion about your cricket edits, is that you are mass creating these based solely on an unreliable site. Yes, the villages exist, so the problem is different than the CarlosSuarez one above: but once you are made aware that the source you use may be unreliable, you should doublecheck this, and preferably start using a different source, instead of simply continuing. You claim that Elmadüzü, Oltu has a 2012 population of 64: the Turkish article gives a population of 302 in 2007, and 406 in 2014. Which one is correct? Çengelli, Oltu; you claim population 154 (2012), Turkish Wikipedia claims 307 in 2007, and 398 in 2014. Without some good indication that this source is reliable, you shouldn't continue to create articles based on it, and preferably either resource the others ot move them to draftspace until you can. Creating hundreds (thousands?) of stubs based on one unreliable source really isn't acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure why you continue to target me and my work with your harassment Fram, but if you still think there's something wrong, or close to being a problem on the scale of Carlossuarez46's, then please get your evidence together, and log a new thread at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - I genuinely have no particular view on Lugnuts's work. I will however note that Carlos is not the only editor at or near the top of this list who has engaged in problematic mass-creation of articles. What matters in terms of sanctions is how they responded to it - and particularly in Carlo's case the fact that they are an Admin and should be held to a higher standard. The person at the top of that leaderboard created stub articles en masse using an algorithm based on data from GEONET - an unreliable source - but they at least seem amenable to at least agreeing to a solution to that problem, and it may be that, after this AN has been dealt with, we can follow a standard path to clearing up these GEOFAIL articles. There is absolutely no need for drama in doing this. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

False historial view on Agbaba page, the infiormation provided is incorrect and i have been blocked

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.

---

They have blocked me from making changes to Agbaba page, but they are giving false information about the orignines of the attire, it is a old hebrew attire, weather they like it or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1so2dkrXw0&t=4s — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTaught (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm increasing the block to an indef for WP:NOTHERE after these edits: [103], [104], [105], [106]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Appeal request

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

---

• List of restrictions

This is an appeal for my current DYK restrictions to be removed under WP:SO. I have waited the 6 months required and upon reflection, I do see how my attitude and style that led to the ban could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing. I have in that time been more involved in collaboration, the main one being for FC Santa Claus. I have also been less reckless as I have in the past by ensuring I asked @Primefac: for consent any time I was thinking of doing something that might be close to violating my restrictions. I have tried everything in my power to do everything right by the restrictions. I do regret the situation on Irish politics that caused me to be put under a ban and I feel that with the restrictions lifted, I would be able to be a more productive community member.

I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. If this needs to be put in a specific template, could someone help me with that please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", "do everything right by the restrictions", "regret the situation". Why not "were combative", "was POV pushing", "do everything right" and "regret my actions"? I'm trying to get an overview, but is this even an admission of fault at all? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am apologising for what happened @ToBeFree: and I am saying I abided by the restrictions that were placed upon me and I am requesting a chance under SO to put things right. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When I make a mistake, I usually apologize for what I did, not for what "has happened". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(and thank you for not evading the ban, but that's meeting the minimal expectation, not an achievement) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am doing. I am apologising for it, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your "attitude and style" weren't what led to these sanctions. You were topic banned because your DYK hooks were objectively, deliberately inflammatory and POV-pushing. You did this for years, so why should we trust that after just six months it will be different? There's no shortage of other editors working on DYKs and no shortage of other topics for you to write about, so what benefit to the project is there in allowing you to return to the problem areas? – Joe (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to bring up the stats but the original discussion highlighted only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518 that were considered to be under that description. I do understand now how that can be viewed but I do think there has to be consistency given 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on Ulster Day and there was no comment. The benefit for allowing me to return is that much of my Christian DYK work is on hymns and churches and as for British politics, mostly tend to be on legislation passed. It's why I have volunteered to retain the restrictions on island of Ireland, Islam and LGBT topics to avoid those risks that could be seen as inflammatory. What can I do to convince you @Joe Roe:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • only 14 – how many times do you think the average editor has smuggled racist and homophobic slurs onto the main page? You've previously used DYKs on hymns to proselytise and insult the Prophet Muhammad, and obscure political articles for carefully-timed sectarian baiting.[107][108][109][110] If your record shows anything, it's that you're extraordinarily creative in finding a way to make even the most banal subjects as offensive as possible, so in your case absolutely anything "could be seen as inflammatory". – Joe (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per original problems and terrible attempts at downplaying them and making the C of E the victim here. The "14 out of 518" examples were only cherry-picked in the sense that they were just some cherries on top of a large cake of similar problems. For example, the discussion that lead to the ban had two examples of "Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice", Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today from 2018 and Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! from 2019. But in the list of 518, we can e.g. also find the exact same problem with Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christ is Risen Today, which was extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 103#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact: and again in 2015, when CofE presented yet again such a non-hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Again! (this time not accepted), and in 2016 Template:Did you know nominations/God Is Working His Purpose Out (hook not accepted). Oh, and in 2017, as Alt1, Template:Did you know nominations/Long Ago, Prophets Knew (hook not used). Perhaps the restrictions should be expanded to cover religion as well instead, considering that you have tried the same thing so many times over so long a period. Fram (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Religion is already covered - the first restriction is A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. It appears C of E is proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow him to propose DYKs relating to Christianity.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks. Struck that part, just a regular oppose then. Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • When looking at DYKs done since the restrictions were put into place, I cam across Template:Did you know nominations/The Twelve Days of Christmas (Correspondence). Perhaps it is unfair to blame the problems solely on the CofE, the reviewers and so on should have spotted the issues, but still: this hook is presenting a work of fiction as factual, which goes against the DYK rules ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way."): and that hook is sourced (in the nomination and in the article) to [111], which seems awfully like a pure copyright violating site ([112]). For someone who has been here so long and created that many DYKs, that's quite worrying. Fram (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse modificationOppose to the first line of restrictions as proposed, per WP:ROPE. This will allow him to write about British politics, but still be restricted from the other topics. I find the above discussion distasteful. We told him to come back in six months. He does so, says he understands what the problem was and regrets his previous behavior. In return, people are beating him up because his grovel isn't sufficiently self-deprecating. One of two things will happen if we accept the proposed modification. He might go on to be a productive DYK contributor. Or he might mess up again. If the later, we'll know soon enough and deal with it, probably with an extension of the ban which excludes WP:SO. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing to Oppose per my response to Serial Number 54129 below. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• • He doesn't really seem to understand the problem though, claiming that the DYKs were cherry-picked and "could be perceived" as all kinds of problems, as if they weren't intended as such all along. This wasn't some occasional lapse, but a years-long campaign to attack certain groups, to shock, and to proselytize, all on the main page. He doesn't understand what the problem was (well, he probably does, but it doesn't show in this discussion), the appeal makes it look as if the problem was what other editors incorrectly saw in his DYKs (no, in very few, cherry-picked, DYKs from an otherwise flawless record). Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • But I do understand, I honestly don't know how I can say that I get what it was and I am willing to change and that I have changed by being more collaborative. I'm willing to do less "shocking" hooks. I'm honestly asking what can I do to prove I have changed but I feel like I am just getting kicked when I am down when I have done what I have been asked to. @Fram:, please tell me what I can do? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Primefac's close said the sanctions can be appealed after six months, that's not the same thing as "come back in six months", as WP:SO makes clear. And note that CofE waited barely four months to (unsuccessfully) try to get his related AE topic ban lifted. There and here, he has not shown that he understands what the problem was at all. He describes his appalling record at DYK as a situation, as allegedly trying [to schedule a DYK] which was not desirable to consensus, an attitude and style that [...] could be seen to be combative, an unfortunate coincidence, and now cherry picked examples. He has self-declared extreme views on British politics and this was a central issue in his abuse of the main page. Why on earth would we open the door for him to do it again? Monitoring his nominations and potentially having to drag him back here will be yet another time-sink on top of the colossal amount of volunteer time already wasted on this, and for what... so we can have a few more hooks in the DYK queue? – Joe (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Joe Roe: You are making it sound like no matter what I say or do, I'll never get a chance to prove myself that I have changed. It may just be me, but that seems fundamentally unfair. I only did the arbcom one because I was told there was no limit to wait, opposed to this which I fully respected. I have already explained I am not good at wording things, which is partially due to a disability on my part. I didn't want to have to reveal that but no one seems to be willing to understand that I have taken that time to reflect and promised to change my approach to it if I am permitted to return to these areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page, and this is their allocution that they learned their lesson? Their apology shows no awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. It has nothing to do with groveling, as the person above notes, and everything to do with showing no awareness about the problems they caused. We don't need deference, we need awareness and assurances that they understand that what they did was wrong. I see zero evidence of that. --Jayron32 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not very good at wording these sort of things. But I am aware of what happened and how it is viewed as. I understand that what I was doing seemed as POV pushing and I have apologised for it and am willing to prove I have changed. @Jayron32: Please give me the opportunity because I honestly do not get what I can do prove that I have understood and willing to say I will refrain from it. I even made the proposed alteration so admins can still keep the leash on controversial issues that caused the problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @The C of E: Did it seem to be POV pushing, or was it POV pushing? If it's not clear, that's the distinction that makes your appeals unconvincing to many. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. The appeal request is tone-deaf and not at all contrite in relation to the behaviors that got them topic-banned in the first place.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How many times can I say I recognise what I did was wrong and apologise for it? I've done everything asked of me and had it all thrown back in my face here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that this a very unhelpful addition. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. C of E it may help those such as myself who are still making up our minds if you answered Joe's question above as to whether you think what you did was POV pushing or just seemed like it. P-K3 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: The only reason I haven't out and out said that was because I was afraid of it being an entrapment. I was afraid that if I said it directly, people would just say "he admits it, so we will keep this on permanently". If I do say it, will that help and not be seen as I feared it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support modification per Roy and WP:ROPE. They have done what we have asked, that's a good sign. Like the opposition, I'm not convinced a full removal is a good idea, but how else are we supposed to gauge that if we don't give them a chance to show us? If we deny this request and it's appealed in another 6 months, how will we know if the removal is or is not justified? I think narrowing the scope of the TBAN as proposed will put us in a better place to evaluate the whole thing in the future. If they've learned, we'll have evidence that they can contribute in a related area without disruption. If they haven't, the disruption will still be limited, but we'll have direct evidence to justify a longer ban. At the very least, I hope we can give a bit more consideration than picking on a couple words in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think it makes much sense to reduce the scope from "religion" to "Islam", considering that only one of their many offending religion-related DYKs had to do with that faith in particular (one which I felt was blown out of proportion anyway). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and oppose modifications, per Joe and Jayron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32 who nails it above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. Edit summaries like "I'm handcuffed" and "my hands are tied" show that the C of E thinks of himself as a victim and a glaring lack of awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. The comments above are simply a continuation of this litany of self-pity. Nothing has changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you are misreading the intent with that message. That message was saying "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", not me just moaning and grumbling. I am aware of what happened and again, I have apologised and will change my ways @Bloom6132:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not at all. If you were truly intending to say "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", why didn't you simply say it in that way? Your edit summary says a lot about your intent. Instead of saying something to the effect of "sorry would like to help but can't", you repeat your "moaning and grumbling", as if these sanctions were unjustified and unfair. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• But it was that way. I don't understand how people are misconstruing the intent. I don't know what people want me to say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• You didn't say it would "break the restrictions". Your use of the terms "handcuffed" and "hands are tied" do come across as painting yourself as a victim. The terminology you employ here is no different. The only regret I'm sensing here is regret that you're now being called out for your behaviour (after years of being given a free pass), rather than regret for the behaviour itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have an idea.Bear with me, this doesn't happen often. The CofE says "If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed." Well clearly there isn't any consensus that dropping the full restrictions is desired, but equally there isn't therefore a way of him showing that he has learned from the topic ban. So my idea is this.
  • 1. The topic ban is modified to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics". (Note that they are already fully T-banned from The Troubles and British & Irish nationalism, so that isn't an issue anyway)
  • 2. However, before the C of E works on a proposed DYK in the areas that have been loosened (i.e. non-Ireland politics and non-Islam religion) they need to gain permission for this.
  • 3. To gain permission, they need to approach one of a group of admins or other trusted editors who are familiar with the case, and say "I wish to work on Article X for DYK, and I propose This hook sentence as a hook.
  • 4. If this is declined, they cannot submit that article for DYK.
  • 5. If it is accepted, they must (a) have the article checked by a "moderator", and/or (b) inform one of the "moderators" if there is to be any change to the hook, before it is submitted for DYK, and gain permission.
  • 6. Any gaming of this relaxation of the topic ban will be sanctionable.
  • 7. I am happy to be one of the "moderators".
• Before you say "Oh, you old bleeding heart liberal snowflake BK", I was one of the most vociferous critics of The C of E over the actions that led to the topic ban, and I nearly blocked them for it at the time, let alone TBanning. [113]. But - a little WP:ROPE seems to me to be no-lose; either we get improved and/or new articles, or we end up back here. And it's purely up to The C of E which path is taken. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think that if it's necessary to have a mechanism which is this complex in order to loosen their restrictions, then it's best not to loosen their restrictions at all. Who has the time and energy (and interest) to be a full-time watcher to make sure that all of these steps are properly taken each and every time CofE wants to file a DYK? It's not as if not having their DYK is going to harm the encyclopedia in some way: DYKs are, at best, ancillary to the primary purpose of the project. It could easily survive and prosper without them, and certainly without CofE's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I say, I don't mind doing it. DYK isn't the point really, though - to get that article to DYK you have to either (a) create it, (b) expand it 5x, or (c) get it to GA. These are all good things. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given Bike Kite's willingness to be involved in this process, I support their solution with an understanding that even slight problems could result in all of this coming back (or worse). This editor has done a fair bit of good stuff and I'd prefer to see them resume the good while losing the bad. I think it's less than 50/50 that's what will happen, but I think WP:ROPE is appropriate. Basically I trust Black Kite on stuff like this... Hobit (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. While Black Kite's proposal is not unreasonable, if the only option is to replace a pretty severe, nuanced restriction, with a somewhat less severe, nuanced restriction, it's more likely that the original restriction was valid to begin with, and the user needs to show that it is no longer needed, rather than that we should bend over backwards to accomodate the user's return to the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• My idea is that if they can demonstrate over a period of time that they can work within the less severe restriction, we might not need the DYK TBan at all (the main TBan will still cover the major flashpoints anyway). Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree to that proposal @Black Kite:. It's similar to what I had been doing when I asked @Primefac: for permission when I felt I might be straying too close to a topic covered by this. I hope it can prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, cautiously, Black Kite's proposal. This is actually a fairly narrow loosening of the restrictions and it should hopefully prevent any gaming. C of E is amenable to it, let's see if they can abide by it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. It wasn't just 14 cherry-picked examples out of hundreds, those were just some examples that were highlighted in the discussion that led to the topic ban. We have plenty of people working on DYK, and we simply don't need help from someone who abused it for years to push their own personal religious and sectarian bigotry. And as for accepting and addressing the problems, "could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing" doesn't come close - there's no "could be" or "appeared to be" about it, it was blatant and deliberate bigotry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Vanamonde93 who was the originator of the tban proposal. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the proposal reads more like PR-speak than genuine recognition of the problem. I would support BK's proposal, but only if we have a group of admins/editors explicitly willing to sign off on CofE's DYK hooks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose relaxed restrictions. A lot of the past problems involved boundary-pushing. And just today on WT:DYK, The C of E has been helpfully instructing others on how to push boundaries and get away with it. So why should we now acquiesce to pushing the demarked boundary just a little, and to allowing some of the topics that were problematic in the past to return? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I resent that accusation about yesterday, I think you misunderstood the intent behind it it. We had an editor who had a genuine question about how to nominate a DYK without naming the main contributor their request. There is nothing in the rules that says the main contributor has to be named so I gave, what I thought to be the correct answer around that. No boundry pushing here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While others here have stated that rope can be given to The C of E, I feel that it would be a very bad idea given his previous behavior and gaming attempts (and given his comments here, I do not feel that he has reasonably allayed concerns). I would have been more open to BK's proposals had they been simplified to a more simple proposal (i.e. any "loosened topic" hook that The C of E proposes must have a co-nominator, rather than go through all the hoops of asking for permission in every step) and be paired with a strong implementation of restriction #3 (that any of his hooks can be vetoed without appeal), but I'm frankly not that confident in DYK's self-policing ability given previous incidents. As for the editing restrictions, if anything, I'm actually inclined to support it being broadened to politics in general given that he has, on at least one occasion since the topic ban was implemented, proposed a hook about a non-UK/Ireland country that at first glance seems somewhat questionable. For instance, see Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe government buildings where the hook calls Robert Mugabe a "drunk Superman"; although the quote is in the article and is cited, given that Zimbabwe is a former British colony and The C of E previously had a userbox in his userpage indicating that he supported "the restoration of the British Empire", the nomination gave me at least some pause. At the very least, it felt to me like another case of gaming and "trying to push his [British imperalist] beliefs" on the main page, though of course other editors may see it differently. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • • • No, I was not calling Mugabe a "drunk superman". It said in the article that there reports that people were calling the statue of Mugabe that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I had already revised the comment to "the hook says" before your comment was posted and I apologize for any misunderstandings raised. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support on a one-strike-and-you're-out probationary period. I don't really understand telling someone to come back in six months only to tell them to go away again. People can and do change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Question C of E, you're "proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow you to propose DYKs relating to Christianity"? Is that correct? Not so may Islamic hymns, are there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) They're called Muslymns. – PeeJay 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support some form of lifting the t-ban, per WP:ROPE. I would prefer a more straightforward solution suggested by The Rambling Man: just lifting the t-ban for some probationary period (say 3 months), and then revisiting the matter for lifting it unconditionally at the end of the probationary period. As the second choice, modifying the t-ban to limit it to "proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", as suggested by C of E. BK's proposal would be my third choice. Seems way too complicated but it's better than the status quo. Simply rejecting C of E's request out of hand seems too vengeful. They did as asked, and a bit of WP:ROPE is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Although it's quite possible that I've used it myself, I've never quite understood the ROPE argument. Someone is disruptive, so the community gets together and stops the disruption with a sanction. The editor asks for the sanction to be lifted, and we're just honky-dory with the probability of their being disruptive again -- as they have been in the past, so there's no "assumption" of bad faith, there's a record of bad behavior -- instead of keeping the status quo, which is working just fine. The vast majority of editors who use the ROPE argument will never have to deal with the disruption that may come about, so they're basically saying "I don't mind making more work or difficulty in editing for someone else". Sanctions are not punitive, they're preventative, but an editor who has edited disruptively in the past is obviously more likely to need more prevention sometime in the future. If editors are convinced by the sanctioned editor's appeal that they've changed, that's a different matter, but hand-waving and citing ROPE is actually uncollegial and unfair to the rest of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is based on the assumption that people can and do change and that a measure of forgiveness is a good thing when exercised with prudence. All of our sactions including bans and blocks, are appealable and none are forever. In this particular case it appears that the editor continued to edit constructively in other areas while serving out their t-ban. They also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better. Under these circumstances, yes, I think extending them some WP:ROPE is reasonable, despite a record of past disruption. Note that all three options that I am suggesting above involve putting somev additional safeguards in place rather than lifting the t-ban unconditionally now. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"In this particular case … [t]hey also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better." I think you're one of the only editors in this discussion who believes a half-assed, exculpatory "apology" like the one above – which includes terms like "Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", and "only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518" – constitutes a "reasonable degree of contrition". —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to word it as politically correct as I could. If you are asking me to be more direct about what I had meant @Bloom6132:, I apologise for everything I had done in relation to what caused my restrictions. I realise now how requesting that DYK request for the 12th was not suitable. The thing that slightly concerned me was the lack of consistency in relation to the similar hook that ran on Ulster Day. But I do understand how my actions were damaging and that is why I have proposed the alteration to let me prove I have changed (and I thank @Nsk92: for being willing to say I can have a chance_. I am prepared to take either Black Kite or TRM's suggestions if that is felt better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to note that (not having participated in the Ulster discussion) that the reason why that was allowed to run could have simply been because no one at DYK had noticed about the request being problematic until it was too late. I imagine that had the issue been brought up then, at the very least the special occasion request would have been declined. It wasn't a "lack of consistency" but rather "people not beieng aware". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're deciding to be politically correct only now that it's self-serving and beneficial for you. Quite a contrast to your editing philosophy that included a userbox that flat-out stated: "This user is politically incorrect". —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed extension of topic ban

• Oppose relaxation and support extension to BLPs, perhaps. I was intending to support per Black Kite's proposals, but it appears that the breaching experiments noted by Jayron have been continuing even through this discussion: see this BLPN discussion over C of E's latest lark: putting a living person on the front page of WP for April Fools' Day and taking the piss out of his name (a name, I might add, that the subject himself never uses except when officially forced to). I don't think I've ever seen the last bit of WP:ROPE used up before it was even offered—but this has to be it. I honestly don't understand their total vacuum of judgement when it comes to the man page. ——Serial 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This was no "breaching experiment". It was only because it came up as an article that could be expanded with a hook I felt was interesting. The issue of his dislike was added later after the DYK was created as far as I can recall. I am willing to change it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, Oh, FFS. I scrounged up every last bit of AGF I could find and went out on a limb to support the appeal, and this is where we are? And of all the possible DYK submissions he could have used for his QPQ, he had to find Template:Did you know nominations/Dachau camp trial? The mind boggles. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Echoing previous participants ——Serial 17:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@The C of E, ToBeFree, Joe Roe, Fram, Pawnkingthree, RoySmith, Jayron32, WaltCip, Dumuzid, Wugapodes, M Imtiaz, Beyond My Ken, Dennis Brown, Bloom6132, Black Kite, Hobit, Swarm, Boing! said Zebedee, Valereee, Vanamonde93, David Eppstein, Narutolovehinata5, The Rambling Man, Martinevans123, PeeJay, and Nsk92: ——Serial 17:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose relaxation, support extension per Serial and the BLPN discussion. Vaticidalprophet 14:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I see that my appeal is not going anywhere, so I henceforth withdraw my appeal. I will go on to work harder to earn people's trust in me and hope that in the future, I can be forgiven for what happened in the past. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• If this needs an extension, that extension should simply encompass DYK as a whole. A need to expand the scope of partial bans from an area indicates a need for a ban from the area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support extension of topic ban I am aware that the C of E withdrew their appeal, but in light of the further evidence that they are abusing DYK ( Nominating Adolf Hitler Uunoa for DYK despite the obvious BLP concerns)I think an extension is warranted to all of DYK, or at minimum to include BLPs. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support extension of topic ban per above. Once you open a thread on WP:AN, your conduct is under observation even if you choose to withdraw from the topic. The DYK nomination is patently unacceptable. --WaltCip-(talk) 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Given the above incident and other questionable nominations since the topic ban was enforced, I'm now starting to lean towards extending the topic ban to biographies (not just BLPs specifically), and I would not be opposed to a full topic ban from DYK if similar behavior continues. DYK should never be an excuse to mock anyone or anything, even if it's for April Fools. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support extension of topic ban – to BLPs at the very least and preferably to DYK. Would've thought he'd be more prudent with his DYK contributions while under sanction and cautious not to push the envelope. But hey, tack this to his ever-growing list of main page abuses (actual and attempted). "Only" 15 cherry picked examples now (to paraphrase what he said above). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose to extension of topic ban. Goodness knows that I personally have had many issues with The C of E's approach to DYK over the years. However, to my mind the chief issue with his editing has always been his sheer stubbornness in resisting any changes to his hooks, which has often resulted in long and often acrimonious discussions and in clunky hooks occasionally getting approved. In my opinion, probably all that is needed by way of sanction is a requirement that all hooks and articles submitted by The C of E to DYK get the approval of an administrator in addition to that of the usual reviewer. The C of E has often shown poor judgement in hook selection, and this is chiefly what has gotten him into trouble, but I've seen little evidence of malice on his part, and before banning him from BLPs I would like to see some evidence that this has been a significant problem with his editing over time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Thank you for bringing this to my attention @Gatoclass:, I had assumed that having withdrawn an appeal that was that, now I find that an extension proposal is being added to add insult to injury (having unwatchlisted the page). I will say in relation to the above, it was a minor blip on my part. I did not write the article, I merely did the extension and nomination. It was in error and I apologise for that. I have to say it seems rather harsh to impose a BLP ban when I made one mistake here on an unrelated issue. @Black Kite: already offered one for the current resrictions and I accepted his proposal but I think that got buried amongst the comments. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

H'mm; sounds like a sure-fire way of doubling the amount of time and energy The C of E will consume from volunteers who have already enough to do of their own. While I'm all about ROPE, normally, I don't think is a normal situation anymore. ——Serial 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It generally doesn't take a lot of time or energy to figure out whether or not a hook is inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It did take more than three months between DYK approval (December 17, 2020) and starting the BLPN discussion (March 26, 2021) to figure out that Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Hitler Uunona was not appropriate for the main page. And three discussions (this one, BLPN, and WT:DYK). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I said "generally", not "always". Secondly, it's inaccurate to suggest that it took "more than three months" of consideration to conclude the hook was inappropriate - it was initially approved quickly, and then sat unexamined at the April Fools nominations page for three months until the day in question approached and I proposed an AFD set, drawn from this year's submissions which included that hook, for further scrutiny at WT:DYK, where its issues were quickly identified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: With regards to the BLP issues, the Adolf hook wasn't the first instance he got in trouble over something BLP related: see for example Template:Did you know nominations/Peterborough recall petition, 2019 (a.k.a. the one where he tried to have a hook of someone comparing herself to Jesus on the main page); I think there have been other cases in the past as well but I can't remember exactly which ones. With regards to people in general and not limited to BLPs, there are instances like one of his earlier hooks which referred to Oscar Wilde by a slur. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Naruto, I recall the Peterborough nomination discussion because I participated in it. But it occurred way back in mid-2019, so that hardly demonstrates a persistent pattern. I've already agreed that The C of E sometimes shows poor judgement in hook writing, but in my opinion that's not much of an issue because, like everybody else, he has to get his hooks approved and, as with this nomination, those problems generally get ironed out in the reviewing/promoting process. The real issue with The C of E's behaviour, as I said above, has been his profound intransigence at having his hooks modified, and his willingness to edit war to get them featured, even against consensus. I happened to miss the earlier discussion, and while I haven't read through all the evidence presented there, am inclined to the view that some of his restrictions - relating to British and Irish politics and religion - may have been overkill, but on the other hand, I probably would have gone further on the other restriction and prohibited him from reverting to his preferred hooks anywhere, not just in Prep (though prep has clearly been the most problematic area, because they subvert the review process). Gatoclass (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"hardly demonstrates a persistent pattern" and "The C of E sometimes shows poor judgement in hook writing, but in my opinion that's not much of an issue …" give me a break. If you discount the Islamophobia, homophobia, and sectarian baiting (i.e. specifically requesting that 1973 Londonderry City Council election and Flag of the Orange Order be featured on the Main Page on The Twelfth), then yes, his poor judgement in hook writing is truly not much of an issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but one hook featuring a negative quote about Mohammed hardly makes a case for "Islamophobia", and one hook featuring slang terms for gays, which might be considered homophobic depending on the context, is pretty thin evidence for homophobia. As for "sectarian baiting" - if, for example, we ran a hook on the Israeli victory in the Six Day War on the anniversary in question, would you consider that "sectarian baiting" or just an appropriate date to run it?

Again, I've never denied that The C of E sometimes submits hooks that are problematic. But so do others, and nobody is entirely free of prejudice of one sort or another. The question is the scale and severity of it, and in my experience at least, The C of E's transgressions are mostly relatively minor. To my mind it's his intransigence that's always represented the problem, not so much the hook content, which when it is problematic usually gets rectified by reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To quote what Joe Roe said above: "how many times do you think the average editor has smuggled racist and homophobic slurs onto the main page? Yes, a hypothetical hook on the Israeli victory in the Six Day War on the anniversary in question would indeed be sectarian baiting if it did not adhere to WP:NPOV (which his two examples cited evidently did not, because they're skewed towards one side of the conflict and hence do not indicate the relative prominence of opposing views). Just because others allegedly do similar doesn't make it right. I'd be delighted to be called out on any of my DYK hooks that even approach the level of prejudice demonstrated by The C of E. But I'm pretty sure that will be tall order, just like it'll be with most other DYK regulars. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if this particular edit is relevant, but out of transparency I'm just commenting here that The C of E made this edit with the edit summary "Sorry, had to say it". Given how much discussion his "Christ has risen" hooks have gotten, this message to me at least seems tone-deaf. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello

I have opened afd for a non-notable player Abantika Deka here –> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abantika_Deka. This player clearly fails WP:NBAD and it's been 7 days since i requested for its deletion. Your attention is required. Thanks  Zoglophie 12:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Zoglophie, what usually happens with these AfD's with limited participation is that the admin who closes the discussion will either relist or treat as an expired PROD. In this case, it is likely going to be an expired PROD. Also, keep in mind that there is no deadline for these things- some deletion discussions don't get closed right at 7 days. Also, at the time of writing this, it hasn't been the full 7 days. Be patient, we are all volunteers and I'm sure someone will close it soon. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Libel claim by newbie in comments of Draft declined by Afc

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

---

This may just amount to inexperience and not need any action, but brand new editor Purple velvet22 (talk · contribs) (first edit 28 March) received an Afc decline (here) by Velella of their submitted Draft:Chrystal Copland , as well as attention by Eagleash at the Afc, the Help Desk, and Pv22's talk page. In response to the decline, Pv22 has charged "discrimination and libel", and "defamation" (and wiped the decline; restored by Eagleash with explanation). Normally for a new user, I'd just mention something fairly low-key on their TP, but this seems to have escalated rather suddenly, and I know there are trip wires on some of those terms, so I thought maybe I'd better leave this to an admin to evaluate, and to find the proper words here. I will leave a standard AN notice at Pv22's talk page, presently. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for an indefinite period Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Mobile editors are not getting the edit notice

Compare:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Alexis_Reggae/Example_for_mobile
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditPage/User:Alexis_Reggae/Example_for_mobile

On mobile the message Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. is not displayed in the new style editor. If you press the X next to "Editing (title)", you switch to another editor that does show the notice.

I'm reporting this here for now because I'm not sure if this can be fixed by an admin/interface admin (maybe the new editor uses a different message?), or maybe nobody is supposed to see the notice anymore, or maybe it's a bug that belongs on Phabricator, or maybe it's all by design so it's not a bug but a feature.

Discovered this because Sophivorus posted a comment on phab:T126190. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I edit in mobile web view most of the time and I prefer not seeing any editnotice, it'll allow the editing window to fully occupy my phone screen. I bet if any editnotices are shown it will irritate mobile editors eventually. enjoyer|talk 02:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enjoyer of World: IMHO either the notice should be removed altogether regardless of device or everyone should see it. If anything, my personal impression is that mobile users need to be warned more than desktop users, not less. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, warned for what? It's a very generic message about copyright and verifiability that everyone who've edited Wikipedia must have known by now. If anything, it should only be shown once and removed after. enjoyer|talk 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

...or have an option to "never show me this message again" kind of thing. enjoyer|talk 04:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enjoyer of World: Warned, informed, tomayto, tomahto. My personal impression (I have no stats at hand to back up my claim) is that proportionally mobile users are responsible for more copyvios and vandalism. (which would make sense for a number of reasons anyway) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile editing is broken in several ways, see User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs from Suffusion of Yellow. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully they fix it sometime. It is alarming the number of bugs that Suffusion of Yellow has been able to document. Thank you for creating that document, Suffusion of Yellow. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Enjoyer of World, I often edit from mobile and it will be annoying if I have to see the generic notice everytime while editing from mobile. However it will be useful to display only page specific, important edit notices like discretionary sanction notice, English variant usage and the like. In mobile view there is a choice between basic and advanced mode, with basic being the default. Advanced mode has more features for example like display of categories, which is not shown in basic mode. Perhaps it can be configured such the generic + page specific edit notice (if any) is shown only in basic mode. Generic notice can be turned off in advanced mode, with only page specific notice being shown. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mobile_app_and_mobile_web_notification_issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I reported a suspected sock puppet they self admitted on the SPI page to being a sock now they are following me.

I came across them one time on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes and today I saw them editing another page the same way as another sock puppet did.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II&action=history They Self-admitted on the talk page that they share the same Ip as the blocked sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarquinhosWikipediano And now they are following me and trying to report me for reporting them.Curlpercy (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Is 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:BC01:122:A066:B545 an IP bot

• Special:Contributions/2600:6C52:6C7F:F549::/64

Hello, i found that edits by 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:BC01:122:A066:B545 is more like IP bot. I also see that all IP ranged 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:xxx, which all geolocated in Turlock, California, has writing the same edit summary, like "tweaks", "Forgot something", etc. Should this IP range automatically give as an IP bot for Portal:Current Events ? 36.77.93.225 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

36.77.93.225: I'm not sure if any of the addresses were notified so I invited the editor using the address you provided. —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Manipulated Map of Iran

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 Wikipedia,

Recently, Some groups have been trying to publish the wrong map of Iran (Map without the Persian Gulf, Caspian sea, Oman Sea is not a map of Iran). It is a national concern. I am wondering how Wikipedia can help to return those maps to the original map of Iran. One example is the page below: [114] [115] It seems the map is locked and can not be changed.

Regards, AwarenessIran — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcenturyWorldAwareness (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• This map does not appear to be in use on en-wiki. Any concerns with it need to be taken up at Commons or Farsi Wikipedia which are separate projects. Slywriter (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is a complaint that a map of the Islamic Republic of Iran Railways at File:Map Iran railways fa.svg and File:Map Iran railways en.svg does not include the sea. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Uncle G Does Iran have marine rail routes?--Chuka Chief_talk 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Five thousand images added by RogerNiceEyes

RogerNiceEyes (talk · contribs · count) is a brand-new user whose editing has been solely concerned with adding images to articles. Since he started actively editing in the beginning of March, he has accumulated some five thousand edits doing this, at a fairly high rate of speed that doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for double-checking. I have no doubt that he is editing in good faith, as many of the images are topically-related and many of the articles lacked images to begin with. Unfortunately, Roger's enthusiasm far outstrips his accuracy. Myself, Ymblanter, and Pjposullivan have all noted instances where Roger has accidentally added images that he seems to believe are related, but are on closer inspection, are not the topic of the article:

• [116], not verifiably of the topic of the article
• [117], the wrong car entirely
• [118], an M75 not an M74
• [119], the wrong church entirely

There are other issues, noted on his talk page: his captions are non-existent or one-word at best, images are often crammed in randomly, and his edit summary is invariably solely the word "Added". The above examples are cherry-picked from the last two days, and from a limited sample of his edits on those days at that - I'm certain there are more, but his edits are so prolific it would be very difficult for one human to check them all.

I messaged him yesterday about the accuracy and captions, but he carried on making more of the same edits and same errors today. I left him a second message begging him to take more care, and he appears to have stopped editing for today since then, but without a response, it's impossible to know for sure if he's seen it or it was just a coincidence. In fact, he has never responded to any talk page message that I can tell, and he doesn't have email enabled. Roger solely edits from the mobile app, so he may not even know he has talk page messages, thanks to the terrible app interface.

I don't particularly want to stop him from editing entirely - as I said, many of the images are useful. It's just that he's creating a great deal of cleanup work in his wake, and wasting other peoples' time (especially after being asked and warned) is unfair on a collaborative project. Ymblanter suggested that we implement a mass rollback on his edits rather than expecting people to manually review them. I'm bringing this here to get some input on what, if anything, should be done with this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed, I fully support this. I first noticed the user a few days ago, when they added a few photographs which did not conform with the Freedom of panorama requirements (example). Whereas I do not expect them to know anything about freedom of panorama, and I do not doubt they are acting in good faith, the fraction of errors is too large to let this go.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have also been watching this work and dropping hints about how to do it better. My guess is that it is based on a list of articles which have images in other language equivalents, e.g. the most recent edit adds an image used in fr:Xanthomonadales. It is potentially useful if done well, and some of it is done well, but I agree that the number of errors makes it of dubious benefit overall. Certes (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, the sheer number of additions makes the accumulation of errors and the necessary response more drastic. Also, not to forget the fact that after thousands of edits, there has been neither improvement nor response from them. Pjposullivan (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• We should perhaps count ourselves lucky. The other language Wikipedias just get "+" as an edit summary. I suggest reading commons:Special:Permalink/520675617#Roger at this point. Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• So far we have evidence of 4 problematic images among thousands of edits. I would argue that finding an image to illustrate an article and adding it to the article is a positive, even if there's no caption, even if the edit summary could be better, and even if it's positioned awkwardly. Definitely oppose mass rollback of these additions without much more evidence. That said, obviously communication/collaboration is required here, so perhaps a short block will get this person's attention?
  As for the "how" question, it looks like his Wikidata edits have a WikiShootMe tag, which makes me wonder if the reason for their focus and not seeing the talk page is because of an interface like that. Unfortunately, the tool isn't working so well for me at the moment so I can't test it (and don't remember from my last experience with it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) After having seen the above discussion, the Commons thread and RogerNiceEyes's block log, I went ahead and blocked the account; as one of the main uses of rollback (#5 at WP:ROLLBACKUSE) is "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia" and per the discussion above, I undid the contributions for now, noting that I don't object to any of them being restored, and pointing to this thread. I might have to disable revert notifications for a while, as this led to multiple editors (Vinegarymass911, NemesisAT and Ahunt so far) doing individual review and restoration. While this seems to be an acceptable outcome, I'd like to apologize to Rhododendrites and possible other opposers as I saw these concerns too late. Sorry – I'll participate in the verification process and the result will benefit the encyclopedia without the risk of incorrect images remaining in articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see how the encyclopedia is helped by this. I don't know how the mass rollback mechanism works, but if mass unrollback is not as easy as mass rollback, perhaps we can leave a thread open more than two hours before thousands of edits are rolled back mainly for communication reasons (presuming as much, since there are scarce actually problematic image additions above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's practically just a script that clicks all rollback links on a page, adding a custom summary to it. It can be imported as "importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js');" in Special:MyPage/common.js by any rollbacker, and it can safely be used on the following page to undo the entire action: [120], reload after clicking, repeat until empty. I wouldn't do so, however, as I have since also received "Thank you" notifications for reverting debatable additions, such as at Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, where an image not really illustrating the topic of the article itself has been added, and Ancient Diocese of Bergen, where an image without explanation has been taken from it:Diocesi di Bergen which contains a caption. Manual review is probably the way to go here; whether this should happen after or before the addition is debatable and doesn't affect the end result if all images are reviewed. The comment by Dyanega below further seems to confirm the need for a need for manual review. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Many medical articles are affected. By quickly verifying some of my reverts, I found Special:Diff/1013173251 at Pelvic organ prolapse and Special:Diff/1013173437 at Paraphilia, neither of which seem to be useful lead images to illustrate the topic. At very least when dealing with medical topics, I would object to unverified re-addition of any content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1013386446 and Special:Diff/1013422672 seem dubious ("Ethiopian boubou" vs. Tropical boubou, "Brown deer mouse" vs. Hispid cotton rat). I rarely find additions that are easily restorable – without thorough research or topic knowledge, neither of which have likely been present when adding the images. The burden of verifiability is on the person adding the material; what else than a mass rollback are we supposed to do to enforce verification in such a case? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  As a late update, the reliability of the additions is very dependent on the general topic. Medical articles? Dubious. Animals? Dubious. Buildings? Apparently often correct; most of the revert notifications seem to be about buildings. And I found a topic that interests me: I'm currently reviewing the astronomical "NGC" image additions, which appear to be fine. The reason they're fine is because Donald Pelletier did a very good job at importing them from Digitized Sky Survey and creating the French Wikipedia article about them with correct illustrations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  The technical images are subject to a similar problem as the animal-related ones: They require extra care and research, as seen in Special:Diff/1015327429. They can be used, but they're technically incorrect when added without caption.
  The astronomical images may have licensing problems, I'm currently investigating this before re-adding more of them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll add that I have manually reverted a fair number of additions which are based upon outdated taxonomic classifications or misidentified images in the Commons; at least a few of these were re-added after they were deleted. It's a small percentage, and otherwise might not be as big a concern, but it's definitely troublesome if erroneous images keep getting re-added. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. If the block stands after the discussion has been closed or archived, all these accounts need to be indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I just did a spot check of 20:
  • 2 were wrong or likely wrong
  • 1 that I don't feel confident evaluating (esterase, for anyone so inclined)
  • the other 17 were accurate
    • 2 have since been replaced by higher quality images
    • 15 restored to the article
• Removing the one I abstained on, we have a success rate of 17 out of 19. This does not change my belief that this mass revert has been destructive (though, granted, it's just a random block of 20 and isn't necessarily representative). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, the esterase one was also wrong (it isn't an image of esterase as far as I can tell). 3/20 being wrong is an error rate of 15%; across 5000 edits that's 750 images - not exactly a small amount. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason to review. The question is whether a 15% error rate means we should nuke the other 85%. For a situation like this, I say no. But no, I don't know where the line should be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Across fifty edits, or even five hundred, I'd say no - wouldn't be so hard to review those. But across five thousand edits, I have to say yes. The sheer weight of volunteer time required to inspect each one for correctness (see ToBeFree's examples in specialist areas like medicine and taxonomy where correctness may not even be obvious to a layman, and again with an expectation that anywhere from 500-1000 will be wrong), applicability, quality, formatting, adding a useful caption... yeah. I hate to do it, but asking for manual inspection of each of these is too much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose rollback and block, support topic ban on uploading images I don't think the rollback should have been done, as only a small portion of the user's images are bad, and not anywhere near a majority. I also think the user should be unblocked, but I would support a topic ban on uploading images. ( If you're wondering why I support a ban on future uploading but not a rollback of the prior uploading, its because I think that the combination of the error rate and the lack of communication justifies a ban on future uploading, but enough of the images are good that they shouldn't be mass reverted)Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  They're blocked on Commons, so a partial block from the File namespace could indeed prevent uploads entirely. We can't, however, enforce a topic ban using anything else than blocks if we deal with someone ignoring all messages. A topic ban on adding images to articles, for this specific user, needs to be enforced using a partial block from the Article namespace at least, until the user has actually seen the messages on their talk page and this discussion. Neither of which might happen at all, per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. This is why I added a link to their talk page to the block reason, hoping that they will at least see that message, and making that a technical requirement for continuing to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)e

Oh okay, thanks for explaining. In that case then I would support a file space block instead of a topic ban, and if that doesn't work due to linking images from commons then I would be in favor of a topic ban to be enforced by blocks.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A partial block from file space wouldn't do anything. He doesn't edit in file space at all; his only edits here are to add images to mainspace articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jackattack1597, for what it's worth, he's mostly not uploading images here - he's adding links to images that are already on Commons. That being said, from the Commons discussion linked above, he did seem to have issues with uploading CV images there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block the history of sock-puppetry and not communicating leaves no other choice. Looking at the edits, a substantial portion are bad; others (like [121] at Ford, Buckinghamshire) appear to be on the right topic but don't improve the article. Even the good image additions generally need someone to fix the caption. I'm not sure the mass-rollback was justified, but don't see a reason to mass-undo it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I reviewed around 100 of these edits today, and restored 15 images; on about 10 pages the image had already been restored. Perhaps another 20 images could have been reasonable editorial discretion. A few (like Atlantic Axis high-speed rail line) I couldn't definitively assess. The rest were either low-quality images (one was a poorly-cropped version of an image already on the page), about the wrong topic, or had other issues. I think the mass-rollback has made review easier. It was also necessary; leaving hundreds of images about the wrong topic (and having no good way to tell which image additions were endorsed by another editor) wasn't a reasonable option. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block - Made just now, this is the way to go, per User:力. As I see it, being an editor here means you have to communicate and grow. Jusdafax (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think the block is controversial. Yes, communication is necessary. The issue is the mass rollback. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block, conditional support going forwards/namespace block - the action was reasonable, they've got to start communicating. Should they do so (adequately), then a namespace block on files should suffice. If not, then it must remain an indef. I've not reviewed the sockpuppetry accusations carefully enough to judge on them. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Endorse block as more than enough rope has been played out. This sort of behavior is becoming increasingly common and needs to be dealt with firmly. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC).

• Comment. RogerNiceEyes' image at WWW Interactive Multipurpose Server was half-right: it was a valid, though old, screen shot of the software, but it was incorrectly placed in the logo parameter of the infobox. A statistical sample of one is not much by which to make a judgment; it motivated me to upload the actual logo. Boud (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Close request

Resolved

Hi all, would someone be able to handle the request at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#"Recently featured" on April 1? It's a fairly short/not contentious discussion, but it needs to be wrapped up soon because it regards the upcoming TFA. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Deanock12

Add the wrong information on page Under Cover (2021 TV series) in production information, JTBC channel bought drama and work from JTBC and STORY TV and not BBC currently . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muatsem90 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing full protection of old TFA pages

Hello, I am requesting Adminsitrators to consider removing full protection of old Today's featured article pages. While cleaning up Lint errors, I found hundreds of TFA pages older than a decade that are indefinitely edit protected for Administrator only. Two random samples - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 11, 2008, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 29, 2007. According to page protection policy, it is no longer necessary to keep these pages under full protection. Protection would have been valid for the day that it was visible in the main page, not indefinitely.

In addition to being against protection policy, most of these pages have obsolete html tags, stripped tags and bogus file option Lint errors that need to be cleaned up. Protection is creating unnecessary hurdles for minor, non controversial gnomery. Currently we would either have to make hundreds of edit requests or RFPP requests. So please downgrade the protection level to Autoconfirmed or remove protection altogether. All the full protected TFA pages can be found among this list. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, this might be a failure of the imagination on my part, but what non-controversial gnomery would be necessary on a TFA page from 2007? I'm trying to think of changes that would be necessary, and I'm drawing a blank. If a page has been full protected since 2007, and nobody has noticed, there might not be a problem that needs fixing; I appreciate that there may be a technical policy violation, but if there isn't a substantive reason I can't see going through hundreds of historic pages to change the protection level as a good use of someone's time (when RfPP has a long list of pages that potentially need a change in protection level for good and immediate reasons). GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

But there is a need for it and it has been noticed. I know most people see this kind of gnomery as pointless, but there is group of people who have been tirelessly clearing the backlog in Special:LintErrors from the last few years. We have been cleaning them from high to low priority and namespace by namespace. You can see the progress here. Please see mw:Help:Extension:Linter#Why and what to fix for a detailed explanation as to why this is necessary.

Obviously this is not only for TFA pages, I brought this here because so many out of policy full protected TFA pages were clogging the Lint error lists making them difficult to navigate. Unprotecting them is far less work than making and acting on hundreds of repetitive edit requests. Perhaps there is some script that can unprotect these pages in bulk? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Scripting this sounds like a reasonable thing to do. pauli133 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The specific error on the January 2008 page is that there is a closing </div> tag after the prose paragraph, but that div tag is never opened. There is one on every January page, meaning that there are 31 of them on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2008. Right now, those unbalanced closing tags are ignored by the rendering software, but there is no guarantee that the rendering software will continue to clean up after our errors forever. That is why gnomes are removing these errors.

We can submit edit requests for each page, but it might be easiest for an admin to reduce the level of protection for each of these pages to template editor protection or some other level of protection lower than full protection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was about to ask for specific examples before taking action. I'll take the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=4&type=edit&level=sysop&wpfilters%5B%5D=indefonly&wpfilters%5B%5D=noredirect&size-mode=min&size= as a base and unprotect the old TFA subpages manually over time. Should be done by Monday. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this is even easier than I thought. Twinkle's "P-Batch" tool can work on the month page, displaying all pages linked from the month page, highlighting fully-protected pages in red. As they are displayed in an alphabetically sorted list, "Deselect All" + Shift-Click selection do the job. Note: The pages are also indefinitely move-protected, and Twinkle requires an extra checkbox to remove that as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done using LibreOffice Calc's enumeration feature on a cell with the custom date format MMMM"_"D,"_"YYYY, KWrite's replacement feature (remove whitespace, replace \n by ]]\n[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/), a user sandbox page and Twinkle ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without commenting on whether removing full protection of old TFA pages is the right solution, the idea that "it doesn't affect me personally, so there might not be a problem that needs fixing" is wrongheaded. HTML errors are worth fixing no matter where they occur. If you are using a modern browser on a recent PC or smartphone, you are in luck; a large team of engineers is constantly working on making pages with HTML errors display properly on your screen. If you are visually impaired and use a screen reader browser, not so much. In many cases an HTML error makes the page unusable for the visually impaired, and the rest of us never even know that there is a problem. Other users who are impacted are users in third-world countries who cannot afford the latest PC and are still using an obsolete browser on a 386 PC or an older flip phone, and users of satellite phones, which are notorious for not being able to handle HTML errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

/applause! What Guy said! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, I didn't say 'it doesn't affect me', I said... well, you can read it for yourself. I was asking for clarity about whether there was a problem that needed fixing, and I qualified it by admitting that there might be a failure on my part. Clearly there was, on both counts. Wrong headed seems a bit strong, no? GirthSummit _(blether) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  I purposely did not link to your post or mention your name because what you wrote was significantly different -- and far less wrongheaded -- than the concept I wanted to comment on. There really are people who think that their preferred HTML formatting is more important than the needs of blind people, but you are not one of those people. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Guy Macon, fair enough, maybe I was being oversensitive - thanks for clarifying. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I found another 265 pages that needlessly under full protection. Most of them are Picture of the day pages from 2006. Unlike the TFA pages, they did not have syntax errors but nevertheless are out of policy protections. Please unprotect them as well. I have listed them below.

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion unprotect the pages to allow the necessary clean-up to be performed, then re-protect them once done. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Reprotect? Under which policy would that happen? Any possible justification for having protected them indefinitely in the first place has been proven incorrect by this very thread. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

CfD

Since about two weeks there are 0 administrators active in closing discussions at WP:CFD. The backlog quickly increases, obviously. It would be helpful if a few admins would tackle this together. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

never look at Commons OwO (what's this?) 08:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons CfD backlog is approaching 10 years now I believe, but here we should be doing better.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's only seven years: the oldest unclosed discussion is from late 2014. Either way, the English Wikipedia is doing better. In chronological terms, the CfD backlog is only about two months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately we do not have to deal with gems like this here, otherwise we would easily go to years long backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Prank AFD

Would an administrator mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedian (artwork)? It appears to be an April Fool's Day joke per WP:THQ#Deletion and User talk:Kbabej#April Fools Joke (the latter is also a NPA). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't catch that this was being discussed at WP:ANI#Vandalism as well when I posted the above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update: This has now all been sorted out so no further action is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Appeals report

The Arbitration Committee will be periodically publishing statistics about private appeals in an effort to increase transparency at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Appeals. The first such report, covering January to March 2021 has been published. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Appeals report

WP:EWN backlog

Thirteen reports awaiting attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — UwU wug's this? 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson

I'm happy to participate in the Wikipedia community while complying with the Terms of Service. Please let me know what I'd need to do to meet those as a Paid Editor. I remain open to learning more about how to operate this way within the Wikipedia ecosystem.

It is ultimately my goal to help Wikipedia articles remain factual, which is why many people choose to work directly with me.

I'm posting this to gain a better understanding of what caused me to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia, and the activity that's since occurred (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson paid editing).

It would be helpful for me to get clarification on some points around how Wikipedia operates so I can better follow guidelines going forth. Here's some initial ones:

• Why wasn't this article (Draft:Neil Krug) considered notable by Wikipedia standards?
• Can you also please clarify what Wikipedia considers as a consensus and how many editors need to be involved before one is reached?
• Lastly, there has been at least 8 articles I’ve participated in that have now been nominated for deletion – one of these going back to 2011 (of which my involvement was minimal). What’s the reasoning here?

I look forward to hearing about how to best move forward. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that you have edited here more than 10 years and you've never been directed to WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV or WP:COI previously. Tiderolls 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I mean your questions don't seem directly relevant to why you were blocked (although I'd also note that the block reason doesn't seem either fully accurate or fully complete). Not all of your work was "advertising or promotion", however, you were also repeatedly not complying with utilising AfC etc. After you not using it was disputed once, then it would move from the "very strongly advised" to "required". The AfDs (which I would imagine did come from the nom looking at your additions in the listed thread) do have their reasoning provided. Mainly notability, with some excabating factors like promotional content, which alone I wouldn't view as sufficient to delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One suggestion is to stop using buzzwords like "ecosystem" instead of writing precise sentences that don't use cute euphemisms you read somewhere and thought it would be fun to adopt. I am a volunteer editor here in large measure to try to eradicate this kind of marketing-ese PR balderdash from encyclopedia articles that students and other people who aren't professional writers look to as exemplars of acceptable common parlance. "Silo", "solutions", "pivot", and "ecosystem", used outside their specific agricultural, chemical, physics, and biology contexts, are the first examples that are immediately jumping into my mind, along with "impact" as a substitute for the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect" that apparently people have decided are too difficult to use correctly. (If there's not a physical striking, there's not an "impact"; there's an "effect." It's not that hard.) I don't believe I'm alone in this philosophy. Thanks for taking this to heart. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What about the "Environmental Impact Statement"? [122] The OED says "The phrasal verb impact on, as in when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it despite its relative frequency, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. New formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact) are often regarded as somehow inferior." [123] I think the water is well under the bridge on the use of "impact" in the way that you disdain, considering it's been going on for about 50 years now. And, yes, the rules about "affect" and "effect" are difficult to remember, so avoiding them to avoid pedantic criticism is reasonable.
      Your larger point is sorta valid, but I see no reason that "pivot" can't be used about a corporation in the same way that it's often used about a second baseman, or as an instruction to a dancer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • These are perfectly reasonable points. Re: the "environmental impact statement": I have no problem with that usage; an impact is physical, and dumping a bunch of paraquat into a wetland is as physically impactful as a meteorite strike. Re: "pivot", the dancer and second baseman are indeed physically making turns on an axis; a business entity, though, which by definition is not a natural person capable of engaging in a physical action, may take up a new business strategy very quickly, but it doesn't have quadriceps and the only way it "pivots" is in a TED Talk. And re: the positive effect this talk has had on my affect, anybody who is capable of recognizing more or less instinctively, e.g., what happens when a baseball gets lodged in the ivy at Wrigley Field, or alternately in a catcher's mask or other paraphernalia, and/or of explaining the infield-fly rule, has more than enough candlepower to learn "affect" and "effect"... It's the uncritical American-business-school-ese, and the privilege-loaded baggage that goes along with it, that makes me tetchy. Wikipedia editors are, possibly, on the precipice of becoming the de facto "usage panel" of some international agglomeration of national English varieties, simply because we are free (and ubiquitous, thanks to Google, augh) and hence more accessible in, e.g., Odisha and Eswatini and Tristan da Cunha than is the OED. But this must necessarily be a conversation for another day (and forum). Onward and upward! Thank you, BMK! Holy cow! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Convert Block to Site Ban

Having read the discussion on the appellant's talk page, I have come to the unpleasant conclusion that the appellant either doesn't understand and isn't about to understand, or does understand and thinks that our rules are for other editors. I recommend that the community convert the administrator block to a six-month Site Ban. The question about why Neil Krug isn't notable illustrates exactly why we insist that paid editors use Articles for Creation. Notability isn't the only concern; neutrality also is. Allowing paid editors to move non-neutral articles into article space would show non-neutral articles to our readers, who trust that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and would create extra work for volunteers to clean them up. This editor is creating too much work to clean up their mess.

• Support Site-Ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Technically if the Community denies the appeal it automatically converts to a siteban unless we specifically exempt it. I don't see any particular reason why this can't be handled under an admin block, however Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that unless determined specifically to be a site ban, another admin can unilaterally lift the indef block if they deem there is an exigent reason for doing so - whether or not the appeal was denied.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Nosebagbear's point is if this appeal received due consideration from the community and fails, it is a site ban unless we specifically say it shouldn't be treated as such. WP:CBAN is quite clear that 'Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".' Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The section above is appealing a partial block: does a denied or no-consensus result convert into an indefinite ban from the affected portion of the block? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes; I think that passage is meant to say that admins shouldn't unilaterally lift a block that the community has specifically said it thinks is correct. I think that interpretation also jives with how we've been applying it here recently where we've considered and retained blocks but also found a consensus to not apply this clause for whatever reason. I'll dig through the archives later, but I think that happened in the case of some quasi-third-party appeals. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Site-Ban per Robert. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why moving to site ban would be required where the editor is already constrained from article space in the status quo - Robert McClenon: are you suggesting the incident editor's contributions to non-article namespaces should also be banned by the community? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems moot, given that an unsuccessful block appeal to AN becomes a ban anyway, but ignoring that I'd rather give the editor time to show that they understand and can abide by editing restrictions. Blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive, as it only creates demand for those who don't.I'm far from convinced from Jacobmcpherson's responses that they will follow them, but I would have liked to have had time to find out. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban per above rationalization, and when I read a paid editor writing stuff like "I tried swapping out the image, but it seems the person who took it wants theirs to be featured, despite it not being current or how the subject of the article would like to be represented." Hang on, so now it's about "how the subject of the article would like to be represented"? Seriously? That's not how things work, one of this guy's clients thinks that because he paid for editing that his interests override that of the community? Acousmana (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where this fits in, but I started a conversation on the talk page of an article. My understanding is its preferred a Paid Editor requests changes in this forum going forward? Talk:Jacob Sartorius#Credible sources Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they should request edits on the article talk page, not here at AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - My reason for proposing a site-ban was to ensure that this single-admin block is not subsequently lifted by a single admin acting in good faith on a bad-faith request. I will also comment on two points by User:Bilby. I may have overlooked or forgotten the rules that an unsuccessful block appeal is a de facto ban, and that makes my concern less urgent. Second, Bilby says, and I agree, that blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive. Jm has been ignoring the rules for years, either through ignorance or because they are for other people, and I have no reason to believe that they suddenly want to be a good paid editor. (I personally think that there are no good paid editors, only neutral ones and bad ones, but that is only my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban as inappropriate (and at least premature): All new editors require guidance to develop adherence to site purpose. If the practice is to move to banning disclosed paid editors because they took a few missteps and need assistance complying with site purpose, the obvious result will be an increase in undisclosed paid editing. The problem with shifting the balance to undisclosed paid editing is it causes a much greater editorial and administrative overhead. Edits by disclosed paid editors can be very easily monitored and tracked. Addressing undisclosed paid editing requires off-wiki sleuthing, trawling microwork sites, issuing take-down notices, administrator and Arbitration Committee involvement, editor investigations of contributor's personally identifying information, and a custom checkuser queue almost no one wants to work (with a backlog that often breaks 100 -

• This is not a new editor, the account is 12 years old! this dude's BS is what you call taking the piss. Acousmana (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Risker, can you update?).

(Disclosure: I modified the discussed editor's block to allow non-article space editing; see #Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson). –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Per Xeno's request - there are currently 95 tickets in the "Paid editing" queue on OTRS. Without researching or commenting on the specifics of this matter, I agree with Xeno that driving paid editing underground completely is not really in the best interests of the project. Further, given the fact that the Terms of Use specifically envision a process whereby paid editors can and should disclose, it seems pretty obvious that banning paid editing outright would be an issue in and of itself. Remember that we do have respected users who would meet the definition of paid editing by virtue of their publicly revealed work as a Wikimedians in residence or in similar roles. It's not particularly helpful to drive paid editing completely underground, because then everyone (and I do mean everyone) becomes a suspect. Risker (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a kneejerk reaction. He's only partially blocked as it stands and we allow paid editing. He is discussing proper editing and disclosure. Fences&Windows 00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose site ban The paid editing policy is quite complex, and that it isn't very visible. A new editor could easily miss it. Either way, we allow paid editing, and they already disclosed on their userpage after the unblock. I see no reason why we should site ban, unless if they continue to edit with a COI. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 05:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I did not actually realize that it was a partial block from mainspace, and that it was unsuccessful. But either way, I still think that a site ban would be too much. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 05:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson

I'm afraid I didn't give the original blocked editor clear enough guidance. This section should hopefully be more focused.

Jacobmcpherson is currently blocked from editing article space by Justlettersandnumbers (who had given leave for me to modify the indefinite block to partial).

Presently, the user is requesting the ability to edit article space again. A no-consensus result will result from them remaining blocked from article space with a block remaining modifiable by administrators. A strong decline would (theoretically) result in a community restriction from article space requiring a consensus at AN to reverse.

Apart from opposing a site ban, I take no position on the editor's request to lift the partial block. –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, xeno. I also oppose a site ban, and suggest that as a matter of priority we establish a procedure for (a) warning anyone who requests an unblock here to be advised that the outcome may be a community siteban, and (b) allowing withdrawal of that request within a reasonable time of being so advised.

In this specific case, I indeffed the editor because of extensive failure to make proper paid-editor disclosure, aggravated by an WP:IDHT attitude to our paid-editor guidance. I had no intention that the block should be permanent – provided of course that the editor agreed to comply in full with our policies and guidance for people in his position. He's had plenty of time to do that, but has chosen not to. Instead he has continued to ignore policy – this statement, for example, is demonstrably less that 100% transparent and clearly in violation of the WP:TOU. Xeno, with your agreement, I suggest that the original site-wide indef-block should be re-imposed until and unless this person (a) makes full and complete disclosure of the actual client (who made payment, and on whose behalf) for all paid edits to date and (b) agrees to comply from now on with our paid-editor guidance as if it were policy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant user page in that statement, and all my paid contributions are disclosed there. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, what Justlettersandnumbers is saying is in order to fully compliant with paid editing disclosure, one needs to disclose both the client as well as the employer. It seems only an employer is listed on your user page. Are you able to comply with that understanding? –xeno^talk 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

xeno, for reasons that I can't discuss here, I fear that even that is ... well, less than fully transparent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. In case it's not 100% clear from my reply to xeno above, or lost in my general wordy blether, firmly oppose unblock from article space, and recommend re-imposition of the original indefinite block until and unless the editor provides full and honest disclosure of all paid edits and the related client and employer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  If the editor resumes paid activities before providing proper disclosure I will undo my modification, or you may. –xeno^talk 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried my best with the format provided by Wikipedia, since the clients listed on my user page all came through the company listed. Please let me know how I can better generate the list. The current parameters don't seem inclusive of all possible paid editing scenarios. I remain open to finding a solution Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson: To help clarify, the client that paid for the editing for each article listed on User:Jacobmcpherson was the subject of the article? Perhaps something like

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.)

Please also note you must disclose any affiliate partners involved, such as freelance sites.

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.; Affiliate: Intermediary Inc.)

(Justlettersandnumbers: please advise whether this would resolve your item (a) above.) –xeno^talk 19:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused by this, did you look at how I disclosed here User:Jacobmcpherson? I don't go through freelance sites for this type of work. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, You have to disclose where the money came from. For example: I'm Joe Smith, and I form Joe Smith Inc. for my Wikipedia business. Joe Smith Inc. gets contracted by 'StarBizPR' on behalf of Bill Actor. I need to write something like 'I edited the 'Bill Actor' article for payment on behalf of StarBizPR via Joe Smith Inc.' MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The money was paid to the company listed on my user page, and I handled edits/articles for the clients listed Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, Right, but if you were for example an owner of that company, you would not put in your disclosure that you were paid by that company. You'd write where the money came from - if it was directly from the article subject, you would write that. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, this wasn't 100% apparent to me in the format provided by Wikipedia - as there's various types of organisational structures, and I tried my best to accurately depict my particular scenario / relationship as a paid editor. The other issue, is there doesn't seem to be way to list multiple "articles" from the same "employer" in the current template Template:Paid. Hopefully this clarifies my approach to the situation Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like the template was updated since I last looked - made changes to my user page. Out of curiosity, where I would I participate in discussions around paid editing on Wikipedia? I'm really interested in providing valuable input that will hopefully improve the relationship between Wikipedia and paid editors Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson: Thank you for updating your disclosures, those appear to have better compliance to the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy. These matters are sometimes discussed at the talk page of that page, Wikipedia:Village Pumps, this noticeboard, the conflict of interests noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, and countless other places (look in or search the archives). Have fun digging into wiki-archaeology! Come back after a few megabytes of deep further reading and I'd support a conditional lifting of the partial block with a commitment from you to make a stronger effort to follow the WP:NPOV policy and conform all contributions to project scope. –xeno^talk 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I will definitely work on my neutral TOV and, if in doubt, know to discuss things in a page's talk page first. I also agree to follow the 5 pillars as a guideline for future editing Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't think an indefinite block is warranted, I do think that the current restriction should remain in place at least for the time being. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 8

could use additional eyes/help. All of these are *very* overdue for closure, but I can't do the deed because I've either already commented or re-listed. Thanks, FASTILY 05:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Question to the community: Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on forums outside Wikipedia?

• Moved to Village pump (proposals) Lourdes 11:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

National Archives & Records Administration again

I have been contacted off-wiki by an archivist, who wishes to remain anonymous, working for the National Archives & Records Administration about a perceived vendetta by @Future Perfect at Sunrise: against the entire NARA. According to this person, FP has decided that everybody at NARA is either User:OberRanks (long since banned) or a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of theirs, and has openly stated that any edit or e-mail from a nara.gov address is to be regarded as malevolent in intent. Can I get some background here? I thought we had good relations (at least at one time) with the National Archives? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• (This may be an obvious question, but did you try asking him directly?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I vaguely remembered reading of some editathons with NARA, so I put that in Google and there seemed to be several over years, some here. Maybe DC Chapter knows more about it? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • this is probably relevant.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's likely just a coincidence, but someone from NARA asked yesterday if an image (File:UBoatCommands.jpg) originally uploaded by OberRanks could be temporarily restored. They removed the request an hour later. Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents— Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Reviewing User talk:207.245.177.3, I see it's likely not a coincidence at all.— Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• If anyone at the NARA wishes to make a complaint the I would advise them either to make it non-anonymously and publicly or, if they wish for some reason to conceal their identity, to make it via OTRS or to the WMF. Something doesn't smell quite right here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Phil here. I can't take the time to look for it now, but I recall that a previous request that really looked like a good faith innocent user from NARA and started to get some traction at AN or ANI or something turned out to just be OberRanks faking it. Now maybe this is an innocent user, but I trust FP@S's judgement about 98% on OberRanks issues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Might not be a good idea to tell someone to spin a sad oh so convincing story to WMF. Perhaps, you all and FPAS know if there is anything more could/should be done (Arbcom report?), if it this is a never ending drain or even worse kind of WP:HAR. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: Maybe you're thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329#National Archives & Records Administration range block in particular? That was fairly recent which IMO does cast further doubt on this claim. Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I actually misread that discussion when I posted. I had thought it was firmly established that the person contacting Salix Alba was OberRanks. But re-reading more carefully, while this is what FPaS believe, I'm not sure it's what Salix Alba believes and I don't see definite evidence which doesn't mean I don't trust FPaS's judgment. Nil Einne (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The details of my contact checks out. The person who contacted me, used an official NARA email address, the name he gave is in the NARA's online phone book. From the details I've been given they run a citizen archivist program and a military history mailing list, which some controversial people like the late Mark Yagers and OberRanks have participated in. FPAS actions have been noticed at quite high levels in the NARA which caused internal investigations and they are now very cautious about revealing identities on Wikipeidia. OberRanks had a long history working with NARA as a paid reference researcher, he has a following in military history circles and some people watch his talk pages so get notified when deletion notices appear there. OberRanks and my contact are different people. --Salix alba (talk): 04:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Anyone can send mail to you purporting to be from someone; and someone whose mailbox is in the same domain will not even trip domain checks. I hope that you were instead checking that mail that you sent to someone, and only that someone, got a reply back. Uncle G (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
            • I had back and forth communications with the someone who's email address matches the official email address of that person on the NARA website. I have sent email to that @nara.gov email address and got responses, I have checked the message headers and there is nothing out of the ordinary. --Salix alba (talk): 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The claim that FPAS actions have been noticed at quite high levels in the NARA which caused internal investigations sounds awfully WP:MANDY with OberRank's modus operandi. If it were true, someone "at quite high level" could have easily found their way to UTRS or Arbcom or whatever official channel rather than e-mailing random administrators. No such user (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I handled a similar request on the IRC help channel this morning. For what it's worth, the IP who added the original ANI report is indeed from NARA, while the IP of the editor in IRC help geolocated to the same general area (Rockville, Maryland). I feel like declaring all of NARA to be probable sockpuppets doesn't really agree with our GLAM engagements, but that's just me. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure I haven't misunderstood, OberRanks is still using NARA IPs and e-mail addresses? Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. [124], [125], [126], [127] were obviously him (all from that NARA range, and all trying to restore or prevent deletion of OberRanks material). As for emails, I haven't seen any, obviously, but I know he's active on another non-Wikipedia website (apparently under his real name), where he's openly identifying as a NARA employee, and at the same time quite busy venting his anger about his treatment by Wikipedia. (That website is also where he contacted OrangeMike, and apparently tried to contact other wiki admins too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Guys, the person who contacted you offline is, of course, OberRanks himself, and everything he says is a lie, as usual. I happen to have been aware of him spewing all sorts of scurrilous accusations against me on that other website (I'm not going to link to it directly, for now, since he's been doing it under what is apparently his real name). At one point he was claiming I made threatening phone calls to the archive; another time he was claiming I paid others for doing so; then he claimed the archives even had me investigated by Homeland Security as a potential terrorist threat or whatnot. All of it is lies, just as everything he's been telling you guys is lies. (Salix alba, that includes what your correspondent told you: if your contact's name has (Redacted)) And yes, all the recent NARA-IP activities here on the site were him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC) come on, FutPerf, you know better. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Right now, FPS is accusing an official government employee, who wrote to me using a traceable official government account, of lying. To do that require a quite elaborate hacking system where a military history researcher manages to spoof a government email address, set up some system to that when I send an email to that official government email it does not go to that employee. Further this person has managed to hack the NARA government website so that he appears in their online directory of employees.

As FPS seems to know this guys name, he can look him up himself on the NARA. If anyone else can guarantee they will not reveal the persons identity I can send them my communication and a third party can verify.

There seem to be several scenarios.

1) Everything is an elaborate ploy by OberRanks, who is acting alone, and is not a US Gov employee.

2) There is a government employee who is the same person as OberRanks

3) Its more complicated. There is a government employee who is different to OberRanks, this person knows OberRanks and the late Mark Yerger, there is a mailing list and VPN server with a group of people monitoring FPS's activity.

Personally I'm between options 2 and 3. --Salix alba (talk): 10:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Salix alba: If 2 is correct, then it's entirely possible that FPaS is correct about the lying without there needing to be any elaborate hacking system etc (and I'm pretty confident FPaS is correct). Also, I don't know what anyone called Mark Yerger has to do with this (I might have come across the name in my small involvement with the OberRanks case, but if I did I've forgotten). But are you familiar with the OberRanks case? OberRanks was found to have been faking sources (yes, faking them, not just using sources of questionable origin) and blatantly lying about their origins, over a very long period. He's more than capable of doing everything that FPaS indicates. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC) - Ah yes, I remember Mark C. Yerger now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it's any help, I'm happy to have a look at one of the emails you have received and examine its provenance - I'd need the full email headers. I would promise to keep the email contents and sender's details confidential. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Actually, no, strike that - as I was involved in the OberRanks case, it's probably better if I don't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And, perhaps an option 4? There is someone who was an employee or contractor with the NARA and who still has access to an email account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't this typical material to delegate to T&S?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• For anyone looking for it and who might doubt what's been said about OberRanks, here's the ban discussion from 2018. I still feel disgust and anger when I re-read it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps, it's like person(s) who get official research faculty privileges at an institution, and thus get nara accounts connected with the "citizen archivist program", mentioned above (and even have remote access). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  That is not at all uncommon. Had I bothered to keep them active, I would still have e-mail addresses connected to institutions where I've taught, despite it having been almost two decades since I was actually at a couple of them. Grandpallama (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  That would fit with OberRank, my correspondent seems to have a job title of "Archivist" and a room number he shares with a number of others listed in the online phone book.--Salix alba (talk): 14:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  If there's misuse of NARA email accounts here, perhaps they'd like to know about it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's no reason to speculate. OberRanks was always quite open about the fact that he worked at that institution, and there's no reason to doubt that he does. So yes, of course, he has the ability to post from nara IPs or write mails from a nara account. Nothing strange about that at all, and no "misuse" of accounts as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  I mean if he's misusing his NARA email account to harass Wikipedia editors and spread lies about what happened here and about you. I know if I used a business/professional email account to pursue a personal vendetta I'd be in big trouble. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  There was an editor back in 2012 who got indef-blocked for off-wiki harassment for calling someone's employer so I am pretty sure doing that is a pretty bad idea.— Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Presumably this would have to be handled the same way that other cases of continued severe disruption/harrassment by identifiable individuals is done - and would probably need to involve WMF (the legal team and/or T&S) to avoid accusations of harrassment.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I wasn't suggesting anyone should take it upon themselves to contact this person's employer. But if they are misusing their employer's resources to harass Wikipedians and to further their personal vendetta, then it is a route that someone official (like T&S) might choose to employ if alerted to it. (or "What Nigel Ish said") Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Re "my correspondent seems to have a job title of "Archivist"": That job title is a senior one at the National Archives, as can be seen on their organization chart. There appears to be only one "Archivist", and I'm quite sure it's not the person sending these emails. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Actually, no, there do seem to be other job titles of the form "xxx archivist". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Turns out the person who canvassed Orangemike to open this thread hurriedly started deleting his older posts from that website, the ones in which he'd been making all those fraudulent accusations, mere hours after I indicated I'd been aware of them. So maybe let's hope he has wisened up and realized that making libellous claims against others on public websites, in ways that also implicate his own employer in the false claims, was not a very wise thing for him to do. People who've been around long enough to remember the original Arbcom case about him (the "Husnock" case from 2006 or thereabouts) may remember how his propensity for lies always verged on becoming self-destructive, and how he sometimes switched into a mode of panicked back-pedalling whenever he realized he'd been in too deep. Needless to say, I fully agree with Boing and Diannaa above that none of us should be contacting that institution about him. It's just so ironic that this appears to have been his biggest fear all the time, but exactly by making up all those lies about how people were allegedly doing it, he himself has been giving us more and more reasons why somebody might legitimately be tempted to start doing it after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  The original Husnock case was before my time, but I examined it when the OberRanks case came up. I suspect he's been emboldened by what he got away with over the years. Yes, his lies became ever more unbelievable, and his back-pedalling became laughable - but what staggered me most was the Wikipedians who swallowed it, when an averagely smart 10-year-old could have seen through it. Anyway, if OberRanks is following this (which I'm sure he must be), he now knows a couple of things: 1) A number of people here now know his real life identity, and 2) Nobody, surely, will be dumb enough to swallow his lies again. Hopefully that will be enough to make him see sense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• As FutPerf noted in one of his posts above, this ANI post from just yesterday, March 31, made by an IP from National Archives and Records Administration, requested undeletion of a file, originally created by OberRanks, and provided a laughably absurd rationale for the request. That this post happened at the same time as OrangeMike, GeneralNotability and Salix alba were contacted can't be a coincidence. That leads me to conclude that FutPerf is correct and that the person who contacted OrangeMike, GeneralNotability and Salix alba was either OberRanks himself or perhaps a colleague he convinced to intercede on his behalf. I am not sure about the extent of the problem, but possibly OberRanks should be added to the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse list and the corresponding protocols should be applied in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that this should be referred to T&S or WMF Legal so that they can contact NARA. If someone is abusing their access to NARA e-mail addresses, or is misrepresenting NARA in some way, that's something that the administrators at NARA should know about, so that some kind of action can be taken, if they deem it necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I want to summarize here, not to rub it in, but for editors who were not aware of the background - I think it's important that we don't lose the collective memory, and that more well-meaning Wikipedians will not be caught by plausible-sounding claims if OberRanks chooses to wait a bit longer and try someone new. OberRanks (previously known as Husnock) was extensively fabricating article content, faking sources to support it, using genuine sources to cite content that they did not support, violating image copyright, and lying about it all when challenged. This went on for years. And there were some real doozies. I've linked to the ban discussion, and some key examples of his misdeeds are listed at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks, but I want to point out one example of the extent of the deception. OberRanks uploaded a copy of the top image from this page and claimed it as his own. There is plenty of evidence of copyvio (wrong date, camera that hadn't existed at the time he claims), but the most breathtaking lie was "I also appreciate the concerns about how similar this photo is to others on the Internet; as stated in previous posts, I think this is due to the location from which it was taken, which was a common vantage point from which the entire building could be seen across a public highway, and therefore used by a lot of photographers before this building was torn down." The two "similar" copies of the photo were pixel for pixel identical, exact same cars, exact same clouds, etc. Anyway, this is just to be sure people are fully aware of who we're dealing with and what he's capable of, and to hopefully extend the collective memory. Oh, and I've examined the comments made by the various IPs listed here, and they all read like OberRanks' style to me too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• At this point, I would suggest that Orangemike and Salix alba and GeneralNotability preserve these communications to the extent possible and where not possible draft a statement of interaction and at least send these to Arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I feel that at this point referring the matter to T&S is insufficient. It seems also necessary to develop some kind of recommendations for how future situations in this case are to be handled. Orangemike and GeneralNotability were contacted by IPs "wishing to remain anonymous" and claiming to be employees of NARA. We should have a general recommendation in place for the OberRanks case that future entreaties of this kind should not be reported at AN/ANI but instead the correspondent should be told to file a formal, non-anonymous, OTRS ticket. OTRS should be told to send this info to the arbcrom if they ever receive such tickets. Similarly, if somebody gets a direct contact from a NARA e-mail address, I think they should just forward such communications to the arbcom. Let the arbcom deal with this matter on the WP end. Nsk92 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Normally, I'd be very much in favor of handling things locally via ArbCom instead of going to T&S or WMF Legal, but I feel as if there would be legal ramifications for whatever Arbitrator personally contacted NARA about this, even if they were representing the Committee as a whole. Given that, I think it is better that direct representatives of the Foundation do the contacting, avoiding all questions about outing, harassessment, etc. I would agree with Nsk92's comment directly above if all instances of "ArbCom" were replaced with either "T&S" or "WMF Legal", whichever is deemed more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've sent my information to arbcom, if they want to send it onto T&S its upto them.--Salix alba (talk): 11:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sending my info to them too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, Arbcom has regular meetings with T&S. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit war in article Slavs (ethnonym)

User Noraskulk is persistently trying to remove the sourced information in the article Slavs (ethnonym) that describes the background of the English word Slave. Help of the administrators is needed. The same thing happens every once in a while. Velivieras (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that you must inform the other editor that you've started a noticeboard discussion related to them. I've done it for you in this case Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Velivieras (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

In the description for your edit, you wrote that you were returning the original information, but the original word was "slav", which you replaced with " slave". I also deleted the text that the word "sakaliba" comes from "slav", but this is not the case (see the article "Sakaliba"). After studying your contribution, I realized that you have already started a war of edits about the etymology of the term "slav" (as for example here). So I'll ask you to come to the consesus with me. Noraskulk (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion survivors

Hi. The following files have survived mass deletion of maintenance categories:

• File:Cayuga Collegian logo.png
• File:Final Fantasy XIV Endwalker box cover.jpg
• File:See You in the Cosmos Bayard.jpg
• File:Trumpheil stern magazine.jpg
• File:Wikipedia size all languages.png
• File:Wikipedia symbols.png
• File:Wilderness Society in front of Kindness House.jpg

Please delete them. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Why should e.g. this from 2005 be deleted? What "source" would one expect for a self-created, non-copyrightable simple graphic? It may be correct or incorrect, but "unsourced" seems like a strange reason. Why not simply transfer it to Commons? While it is currently unused, it was used on historical versions of pages([128]), so deleting this will contribute to the slow degradation of old page versions, for no clear benefit. Fram (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

From 2005

2004

Agree with Fram, Keep the 2005 growth graph image. I found it interesting, esp. the time it took to grow to 200,000 articles, and both historically useful and archival worthy as an early Wikipedia document. The 2004 symbol image is similar for Wikipedia history purposes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia symbols still need proper attribution. Peter James (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter James: File:Wikipedia symbols.png is a collage of File:Paullusmagnus-logo (large).png, m:File:Logo sansculotte2003 2.png, m:File:Logo ky aug2003.png, m:File:Stygian Wiki Logo Proto Variant 3.png, m:File:Logo wikipedia colorz.png, m:File:Wiki-oe-one.png, m:File:Wikipedia-melkom.png, m:File:Ncwiki4.png, m:File:Logojfblais2.png, m:File:Ghostway-wp-hoch.png, m:File:Logo gobidul.png and m:File:Wplogorozana4.png. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There's been an issue lately with people proposing the deletion of Wikipedia history-related files with an apparent lack of understanding of their context. I've had to deprod a few, mostly from one editor, who I've also seen get chewed out quite thoroughly by some of our more irascible personas. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Wilderness Society in front of Kindness House.jpg was used in an article[129] - the title probably refers to The Wilderness Society (Australia). There is a thumbnail but the file seems to be missing. File:Cayuga Collegian logo.png also appears to have no file but was used in an article until 2 February; its replacement was uploaded to Commons and deleted. Peter James (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Such "survival" is likely intentional. I have replaced the speedy deletion tag and the license tag at File:Wikipedia size all languages.png by {{pd-ineligible}} based on commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Charts. Someone (not necessarily an admin here, but an experienced user at Commons) should review this action and transfer the file to Commons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's intentional, if it was intentional then the maintenance categories wouldn't have been deleted. Also this has happened several times before: 1, 2, 3... -- CptViraj (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes this happens because the MediaWiki caches are out of date. You can fix this by performing a null edit on affected pages. -FASTILY 22:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

phab:T124101#6969820. @Peter James: The Wilderness Society file is available from [130] and when I tried to overwrite it I first got a duplicate warning (makes sense) and after trying to ignore that I got the error "The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/b/b2/Wilderness_Society_in_front_of_Kindness_House.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends" so I can't overwrite it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih

The page needs to be deleted quickly due to IP sabotage of the article transferred to another name and the IP is constantly being sabotaged Please delete it, thanks.--MadD ^(talk) 23:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih (official website]) ||| wikidata Try to see 7 interwikies.
• FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih (official website) ||| wikidata

They are the different teams, so two different pages are needed, not one. Both teams are active now and non-defunct. The wrong renaming in late 2020 was made without consensus and without discussion. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I make that 9 reverts in less that 1 hour at FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih from the above two editors, so I've protected it. I notice that neither editor has attempted to use a talk page, although 91.124.116.230 has asserted in 5 edit summaries that these are different subjects. I'm seeing no attempt at all to even answer this on your part, MADdi0X. Is it that hard for you to simply explain on a talk page why you disagree with that statement? Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uncle G Hi, the review manager of this IP is sabotaging. You look at the history of the article. This article is an unnecessary diversion that the IP is trying to use as a new article.--MadD ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, that's not an explanation of why you disagree with the statement. That's just a bare assertion that someone is doing something bad with zero explanation of what is bad about it in the face of a contrary assertion that it is not bad. You need to go to Talk:FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih (2020) and put an explanation there of why you disagree with the statement that these are different subjects. Then you and the other editor can discuss this. Use talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncle G Ok,thank you.--MadD ^(talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

IABot says I'm blocked, but I'm not

I was trying to use IABot to add archives to a page, and I kept getting the same error message: Analysis error: blocked: You have been blocked from editing. I don't know where this came from, and I am assuming it's a bug as I haven't been blocked. Maybe I've been blocked from using the bot? If someone could clarify what this means, that would be great. Thanks! Update: Just to update, the bug is still there. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 16:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (updated 23:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)) (please ping on reply)

@Doggy54321, this has also happened to me but I am able to use it after a few hours. You can drop by my talk page and ask me to run the bot on any page if you want. I will try to respond as quickly as I can. Cheers. EN-Jungwon 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: Thanks for the offer! I just tested it and it's back to normal, so I won't need you to run it on any pages for me, but thank you again for the offer D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 13:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Closure review for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war RFC on Infobox

• RFC on Infobox (Listing of Parties) discussion, closed by @Mikehawk10:
• Discussion on Mikehawk10's talk page (where he suggested a closure review is fully appropriate)

This is a request to review the close at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war/Archive 19#RFC on Infobox (Listing of Parties) to determine whether Turkey should be listed in the infobox as a full belligerent (as opposed to just "Supported by" or an "alleged" note). I discussed this with the closer Here.

Extended content

Mikehawk10 stated in closing: Some of the sources provided by those who argue Turkey are a belligerent do not seem to strictly indicate anything beyond support, but it should be noted that support does not preclude Turkey from being a belligerent. Future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time, but there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent. I believe there is enough due WP:WEIGHT to list Turkey as a full belligerent and list the Turkish leaders involved as commanders and leaders. I provided a number of sources for this relating to Turkey deploying Syrian mercenaries (the article infobox currently erroneously lists the mercenaries under Azerbaijan) and fighter jets and also reliable sources confirming Turkish involvement, which I will quickly recap. I have also since come across three more incriminating sources for Turkish involvement that were not included in the RfC (1, possibly 2, were published afterward). These sources include Columbia University, JISS (note that Israel provided support to Azerbaijan), and even an Azeri source, Turan Information Agency. The mercenaries were recruited by Turkey and transported on Turkish military aircraft.[131][132][133][134] Many major third-party sources also described Turkey's role as "decisive" and "critical".[135][136][137][138] These sources are currently cited in the infobox: the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries - European Parliament[139] The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces. - Stratfor[140] Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer - Reuters[141] The European Parliament has made an official statement condemning Turkey for its involvement in the war and confirming the Turkish government was responsible for deploying "terrorist fighters" (their choice of words), Stratfor has literally stated Turkish military involvement goes far beyond support and confirmed the presence of Turkish fighter jets, and Reuters confirmed that even Azerbaijan admitted that Turkish F-16 fighters were provided. And now, here are the three additional sources I have since found: Columbia University Institute for the Study of Human Rights This page identifies perpetrators of the conflict in Artsakh, highlighting...(ii) Turkish commanders overseeing and advising the operations 1. Defense Minister Hulusi Akar Akar, Turkish Defense Minister since 2018, was one of the first Turkish officials to make public threats against Armenia after Azerbaijani aggression in July 2020. In a meeting with Azerbaijani high command that month, he pledged Turkey's support to the Azerbaijani cause in Artsakh. Following that meeting, Turkish weapon shipments were delivered to Azerbaijan. Akar was in Baku on September 28-30 and played an important role overseeing all operations in Artsakh. His Ph.D was on WWI-era Armenia and American views of the Armenian Genocide, which Turkey still denies. 2. Lieutenant General Şeref Öngay Öngay is the Commander of the Third Army of the Turkish Ground Forces, which is based in eastern Turkey and has responsibility for the Caucuses...The Armenian delegation at OSCE say he “took part in planning and conducting” Artsakh operations. He was also spotted in Azerbaijan on 4 September 2020, as well as October, planning joint operations with the Azerbaijani military. 3. Major General Bahtiyar Ersay Ersay, whose title is officially “Chief of the Operations Directorate of the Land Forces of Turkey,” oversaw the Azerbaijani General Staff in Artsakh following the sacking of former Azerbaijani Chief of Staff Najmeddin Sadikov...Ersay was confirmed to reside in Azerbaijan as recently as March 15th 2021, using the title "Commander of the Turkish Mission in Azerbaijan". Since the Azerbaijani Chief of the General Staff still remains vacant, and Ersay has been seen wearing Azerbaijani military attire, it is likely he is de facto in charge of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. Ersay was also involved in Syria and Libya, potentially recruiting and overseeing the mercenaries that fought there. Because of this and his commando past, he is likely the Turkish commander most directly involved with these jihadi mercenaries. 4. Major General Göksel Kahya Kahya is an important Turkish drone commander who heads the Turkish Air Force’s 1st Supply and Maintenance Center. Prior to the Artsakh conflict, he led the deployment of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones in the Libyan Civil War. This drone expertise was then shifted to Azerbaijan, where he was based since July 2020 and oversaw the well-documented use of TB2 drones. These drones both were instrumental for the Azerbaijani victory in the conflict and made possible the devastating human rights abuses against civilians. 5. Adnan Tanrıverdi Tanrıverdi is a retired Turkish general and the founder of SADAT Inc. International Defense Consultancy, a private defense contracting company started in 2012...Tanrıverdi has significant influence over Erdogan, using SADAT against Erdogan enemies in the "coup" in 2016, and helping re-organize and purge the Turkish Armed Forces. As a result, SADAT has been referred to as a shadow military. Reportedly, he and SADAT have played an important role in recruiting, equipping, and transporting about 3,000 Syrian mercenaries to both Libya and Artsakh. Importantly, SADAT is also the primary organization training these Turkish-backed mercenary proxies. Though he lacks any official position in the Turkish government/military, his influence is significant. All of these figures should be added to 'Commanders and leaders' in addition to Erdogan at the top of them. Turkish Militias and Proxies by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies Turkey strongly supported the decision by Azerbaijan to begin in September 2020 a military campaign intended to wrest back the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh from Armenia. Evidence rapidly began to accumulate that Ankara was maintaining a similar pipeline of Syrian client fighters to the battleground, as had been the case in vis Libya. The components and tools of this strategy were familiar. Again, official denials from Ankara and Baku were rapidly belied by reports from the battle zone. Once again, the Syrian fighters were recruited by the SNA, in cooperation with SADAT. The fighters were offered monthly fees of $1,500-2,000 for agreeing to serve in the southern Caucasus. The contracts, again, were for three to six months. The main recruitment centers were in the cities of Afrin, Al-Bab, Ras al-Ain, and Tel Abyad. The route taken out of Syria, according to fighters’ testimony, was also similar. Fighters crossed the border at Kilis and were then transported to the Gaziantep Airport. From there, SADAT-chartered A-400 transport aircraft flew them to Istanbul Airport, and from there they boarded flights to Baku, Azerbaijan. The specific SNA-associated militias used for this deployment differed from those who provided the manpower for Libya. The main pools of manpower for this deployment were the Sultan Murad, Suleyman al-Shah, Hamza and Failaq al-Sham brigades. The first two of these brigades draw their support from ethnic Turkmen populations in northern Syria, and hence may have been assumed to have had a greater natural affinity for the Turkic Azeris than would Syrian Sunni Muslims of Arab ethnicity. But in its general contours, the deployment in Nagorno-Karabakh resembled the blueprint established in Libya. In both cases, the role of SADAT was paramount in the recruitment, organization, and transport of the fighters; the SNA was the chief pool of manpower; and the deployment took place alongside the use of specialists from the official Turkish armed forces. Famous general killed in helicopter crash in Turkey One of the Turkish commanders died in a helicopter crash earlier this month, and Azeri news agency Turan Information Agency confirmed his role: As a result of a plane crash with a military helicopter, which occurred on Thursday, March 4, in eastern Turkey, Turkish General Osman Erbash, who was at the origin of the creation of the Bayraktar combat drones, was killed. The son-in-law of Turkish President Erdogan, the owner of a company that produces Turkish drones, Selcuk Bayraktar, wrote about this in his Telegram channel. Their cooperation consisted in testing developments for the combat use of drones. In addition, General Erbash in Turkey is called one of the authors of the strategy used by Azerbaijan to succeed in the Second Karabakh War. Similar to how Turkey is listed as a full belligerent on the Syrian Civil War and Second Libyan Civil War, it is also a full belligerent here as well.

--Steverci (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

So this wall of text was all to say you don't like how the RfC was closed? And to re-litigate the RfC here, apparently? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed everything not directly related to my argument. And if you bothered to look at my discussion with the closer, you would know he suggested there was "significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion" and encouraged making a closure review. --Steverci (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For basic readability, I have collapsed your long opening comment. --JBL (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Steverci - You will recall that you brought this dispute to DRN in December 2020. When I began the moderated discussion that ended in my launching the RFC on 14 January 2020, I wrote, on 22 December 2020: "Be civil and concise". I have often written that overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not clarify the issues or help resolve a content dispute. A 1460-word closure appeal does not clarify the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Admins and editors: I made a long unsuccessful attempt to resolve this dispute in December 2020 and January 2021 that ended in composing and posting the RFC. This is another area where there is battleground editing because there have been battles, and where ArbCom has imposed discretionary sanctions. My sympathies to anyone who tries to help resolve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Responding to a talk-page message from Steverci, who asked me to provide comment given that I was the closer. I think that there is room to review the closure anew following the closure of the WP:RSN discussion on Kommersant. The reason for this is that, in the closure, I found no local consensus on the reliability of Kommersant, though if the community finds a consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard that Kommersant is reliable, then this would overrule the local consensus, which in turn would require the closure to be revisited. For now, however, I would restate what I said on my talk page I don't see significant additional information regarding Turkey's involvement, at least as far as reliable sources are concerned. As a result, I don't see a need to further modify the closure at this time. If Kommersant is indeed a reliable source regarding Turkey's involvement, then this would change, though it's not clear to me that the community has come to a consensus on that issue yet. As such, I would advise that we wait until the WP:RSN thread is closed until this closure review is itself closed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 Have you taken a look at the above extended content? It contains sources from the Columbia University Institute for the Study of Human Rights, the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, and even the Azeri source Turan Information Agency, all providing additional information regarding Turkey's involvement. --Steverci (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci:I have. The lattermost source says that the general was instrumental in creating the strategy that was used, which would be consistent with the support designation as well as with the belligerent designation. The middle source provides evidence that militias/mercenaries had been supported by Turkey to fight in the region. This is something that the RfC concluded (and it was noted that mercenaries should be included as belligerents). But, the source doesn't actually say that Turkey's role went beyond logistical/financial support for these militias. As I stated on my talk page, there appears to be a weak consensus among editors in the discussion that the fighting of these Syrian Mercenaries with logistical support from Turkey and payments from Turkish companies does not constitute the Turkish state's direct involvement in the conflict as a belligerent, so while this is information that I did not see upon reviewing the discussion, it doesn't have a bearing on its closure. The first additional source listed gave me a bit of pause, since it points to a much tighter coordination between Turkish brass and Azerbaijani forces than other reliable sources had reported, and because it is an academic source independent of the conflict entirely. It would also call into question the veracity of some of the claims that had been made by some of those favoring a designation of support, particularly those who stated that Turkish military personnel were not spotted in the conflict zone during the war or that the support was merely diplomatic in nature (though there was already strong consensus that there was military support being given). That being said, it's not 100% clear to me if this would have changed overall consensus, though as I noted in the close, future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time, but there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent. I think the close should stand for now, though it might very well be appropriate to have another RfC on this (particularly after the Kommersant RSN thread closes), if you believe that this is significant new information that would affect consensus, in light of the arguments made in the previous RfC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Even if this is not enough to change the consensus for the time being, can we change "alleged by Armenia" to just "alleged" if I also add the Columbia University Institute source in the infobox? And how would you feel about the Turkish leaders listed in the Columbia source being added to the 'Commanders and leaders' list in the infobox? --Steverci (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: Since MOS:ALLEGED states that although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear, we need to be explicit is to who the alleging party is. And, to restate the above, the Columbia source gives me pause, but also since I'm not sure it would have changed local consensus. For both of these reasons, I would advise against changing "alleged by Armenia" to "alleged" in the infobox for the time being. I would also advise against expanding "alleged by Armenia" to something along the lines of "alleged by Armenia and by [Columbia source author]", since, while the source shows closer military coordination between Turkey and Azerbaijan than any other independent source provided in the article, it's not clear that the local consensus would find this to be an accusation of belligerence rather than one of support.

Again, community consensus on what constitutes a "belligerent" would be helpful here in clarifying if there is something to judge this against, but I can't find any and it doesn't appear to me that such a consensus has been fleshed out. If you are interested in assessing community consensus on a particular (general) articulation on what constitutes a "belligerent" for purposes of the infobox, perhaps opening a thread on the relevant template talk page would be helpful, as this consensus would probably be best defined in a general sense rather than in the sense of specific application to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If you choose to do this, I would recommend you leave a note on Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page and/or notify each and every editor that participated in the survey/discussion 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war RFC on Infobox, so that they could be informed of your attempt to get community consensus on a proposed general guideline in a manner that does not constitute canvassing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I for one think Mikehawk10 did an excellent job of weighing up the consensus at the RfC. It was a thankless task carried out diligently. While the current consensus on Turkey's status doesn't precisely match the stance I held at the RfC, I think it's a solid, supportable compromise. @Steverci: the administrators' noticeboard isn't the right place to ask for a review of this content dispute, the correct place is back at the talk page where it was previously discussed so editors familiar with the topic will participate. There's currently a section on precisely this issue, you could add your concerns there and try to build a new consensus to overturn the previous one. Perhaps a new, narrower (neutrally worded) RfC will make some headway on this in the future. However, it's probably better to let some more time pass first, even if you're unhappy with the status quo – as the previous consensus was only thrashed out recently and received a lot of input a dramatically different outcome isn't particularly likely. Jr8825 • Talk 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Grammy Award for Best Immersive Audio Album

Suggest this category is started — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.242.124 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is an hoax and should not be taken seriously. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How is it a hoax? There's an article at Grammy Award for Best Immersive Audio Album. DanCherek (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Translation: An editor not using an account, and who thus cannot create content pages, comes along as 81.178.203.235 (talk · contribs) and tries to add a bunch of articles, all of which already say that the subjects got this award, by its old or new names, to a new category. Editors blanket revert because the category page does not exist. The editor without an account comes back as 213.205.242.124 (talk · contribs), and in one edit summary asks why the reverting editors with accounts do not just create the category page, then. It would indeed be akin to Category:Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording. Xe is blanket reverted again, and comes to the administrators' noticeboard. Administrators are then told that this is hoaxery. We have constructed a quite byzantine way of doing things for editors without accounts, haven't we? Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've had this same argument before and lost. I really don't get it. There's a general principle that you shouldn't revert an edit just for being imperfect. For instance, if a user adds a readable, well-sourced paragraph, you don't get to revert them just because it needs copy-editing. Hell, our policies even say you can't speedy an article for being written in another language. But apparently categories are exempt from this principle, and it's seen as acceptable to revert a constructive edit because it put red text in the box where there's only supposed to be blue text, when one could just turn that red text blue oneself. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• This seems more like unfortunate confusion than any major problem with the English Wikipedia to me. Yeah sure, the category should exist. But when an IP adds a bunch of articles to a red category, and the article does not mention that award anywhere, it's easy to see why it was reverted. And while I didn't check, I'm fairly sure that the majority by far of our articles didn't mention the Immersive Audio award because it was only awarded for 2 years, whereas it was 14 years under the old name which is likely all those articles mentioned. Should those reverted have searched for any grammy award and then checked out the wikilink? Maybe. Should they have just searched for an award by that name? Maybe. But it's easy to see why someone would just search for "immersive" in one or two articles where the category was added, think it was bullshit since the article didn't mention that and revert them all. Even someone somewhat familiar with all the grammy awards may have never heard of the change from 2019 and at least to me, even if I had heard of the surround award, I wouldn't necessarily think maybe they renamed that when I read "immersive audio" without thinking carefully. And although I mentioned IP, frankly I think the same would often have happened if the editor didn't recognise the other editor or especially if they had limited history. Maybe the biggest issue was more precise edit summaries and messages rather than templates would have been bigger. Rather than saying it was a test edit or a generic comment on how to cat or simply saying it's red link, something like "this category doesn't exist because the award doesn't exist" would have been clearer and maybe helped the IP realise what the problem was so they could explain why there was confusion i.e. the award does exist but was called something else then. (Although should we actually add those surround articles to the immersive cat? This is the sort of thing where to me it seems like it might be better to add the surround article to a surround cat and only add 2019 and onwards articles to the immersive cat.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh nonsense. Special:Diff/1015838880. It's in the fourth sentence of the article. And Special:Diff/1015840340 used the vandalism rollback tool to revert it. Uncle G (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

    • @Uncle G: What nonsense? Who said it was mentioned in no article? I specifically said 'and the article does not mention that award anywhere, it's easy to see why it was reverted. And while I didn't check, I'm fairly sure that the majority by far of our articles didn't mention the Immersive Audio award because it was only awarded for 2 years, whereas it was 14 years under the old name which is likely all those articles mentioned. You've highlighted one article. So let's look at the actual stats here.

      The first article modified, Brothers in Arms (album) said "immersive Latin American imagery". That's the only usage of the word immersive. It does mention the surround award, but as I mentioned above, it's easy to see why people wouldn't associate this award with the immersive album award or even find it if they were just doing a cursory search to see whether the edit could be constructive. The second article Genius Loves Company [142] and third article Morph the Cat [143] no mention of the word immersive. (I could repeat my points on the surround award for a third time, but it seems unnecessary.) The fourth article modified, Beyoncé (album) said "She highlighted the immersive experience of Michael Jackson's Thriller (1982)" and in a quite I miss that immersive experience, but again no mention of the immersive award. The fifth article modified, Love (Beatles album) [144], sixth article Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs [145] and seventh article Amused to Death [146] again all no mention of immersive. It's only when we get to the eight article Early Americans [147] and ninth article [148] Eye in the Sky (album) that we get the two articles which did mention that specific award title, those two years where it was actually awarded under that title.

      While I'll admit, the numbers are less skewed than I expected, in big part because we don't apparently have articles on a bunch of these albums, by my definition 7 out of 9 or 77.8% is still a "majority by far". For example, it's more than a supermajority in the majority of voting systems I'm fairly sure.

      So no I stick by my point, actually even more strongly now that I think about it more. While it may have been good if editors had just searched the article for any mention of grammy awards and then checked out the surround award article, or searched for the award by name in general; it's entirely reasonable they're not going to. If an editor adds a bunch of articles to a non existent category called about an immersive album grammy award, it's entirely reasonable an editor would check out 2 or 3 articles, see zero mention of an award with this title in the article (probably via a search for immersive since it's an obvious rare word) think not sure what this editor is doing but it's a red link cat plus there is no mention of this in the article, and revert.

      While we expect those reverting recent changes to pay a bit of attention to see if the edit may be constructive, it's always very tricky about how much time people should spend. And when the award has such a unique title it's fairly reasonable that the amount of time would simply be searching for this fairly unique title in the article and reverting when there is no mention. And personally, I think 2 or 3 is enough before mass reverting but as my stats prove, it's actually easily possible that an editor could have made an effort in the first seven articles, then have given up by the time of the eight and ninth and not bother. If you check every single article when you're reverting an editor who has made the same edit to nine articles, the first seven of which seem obviously wrong, good on you I guess but I'm not going to say editors need to do that. It's unreasonable.

      As I said, the one area where it seems to me we could obviously improve is communication, to better explain to the IP why you're reverting them. This seems to me what we should be discussing. Instead we're stupidly discussing whether editors should have found and realised that maybe the award in the article called "Best Surround Sound Album" was renamed to "Best Immersive Audio Album" when coming across a red flag a series of edits as the immersive audio album isn't mentioned and the cat is red; and whether after failing to find any mention of an award with the unique title Best Immersive Audio Album in the first seven articles, they should have kept looking in the eight and ninth articles.

      I should perhaps mention that I'm concentrating on User:Tbhotch here as it seems fairly obvious from their hoax comment above that what happening is something along what I outlined. They looked in at least one, probably more than one of those articles, found the IP had added a red link cat, found zero mention of an award with that title in those articles they looked at, so reverted all thinking that the award clearly didn't exist since surely someone would have added it by now if it did. I admit, personally once the IP actually made it here, I would have searched for the award just to make double sure. Or maybe said something like, please create the article Grammy Award for Best Immersive Audio Album first, then we can discuss a category. And once I previewed or submitted and realised, oh fuck, there really is an award called that the IP was sort of right, apologised and taken effort to correct the problem. But meh, you can see from comments that I do probably but a lot more time into them than others so whatever. It's AN, Tbhotch was wrong, others corrected them.

      For User:Binksternet their comments are less clear. If they really only reverted because the category doesn't exist without considering whether it should exist, okay a rap on the knuckles for them. However if they did the same thing as Tbhotch then yeah nah, no rap. And because they could have easily have done the same thing, it's more of a reminder rap than 'you dang screwed up in a series way' rap.

      Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

      • People actively working against those people who are building articles by treating them as vandals, is not right, however fine one chops it. There's also a fundamental flaw, there. Brothers in Arms mentions and hyperlinks to the award page at the beginning of its second paragraph, as do all of the other articles (in various places); and the reason given in Special:Diff/1015778825 (and below) is based upon wanting to impose rules instead of helping people who cannot comply with the rules because MediaWiki doesn't let them.

        Honestly, too few people are seeing things from the point of view of other people who do not have accounts, or remembering what it was like for all of us once. And this is making a terrible experience for people without accounts. It's not right to be putting people in this Kafkaesque world where they cannot fix or improve things because they have to fight against a widespread culture of robotically applying rules, always reverting, and not thinking "How I could collaboratively help instead?". Moreover, this goes equally for a recent case I saw (not to get into the specifics for obvious reasons) where multiple people reverted an article subject erasing a clearly false statement (if one read the source) from the article and even warning the article subject about a conflict of interest and saying that it was the rules that the content stays in the article. Indeed, the article subject's interest there actually aligned precisely with ours, having an accurate encyclopaedia, and didn't conflict at all.

        Uncle G (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So how about it?

Not sure why this award would be different to any other award. Seems like it was just overlooked. It would be quicker just to create the thing than revert a dozen other edits...

It's the same for both of these related categories

• Category:Grammy Award for Best Immersive Audio Album
• Category:Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical

Also, yes, what's with people making it a career of having thousands of reverts in their history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.203.235 (talk)

I think of it as cleaning up the encyclopedia to comply with the hard policy of WP:Verifiability. Sometimes it's unreferenced, dubious stuff, sometimes it's personal analysis (disallowed per WP:No original research), and sometimes it's pure vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I performed a bunch of reverts on this issue, and I would just like to say that I was considering only one thing: WP:REDNO, an editing guideline. Categories should exist before they are added to articles. That's it, nothing more complicated. I didn't bother checking to see if the notional category did or did not fit the topic – I just saw the red and reverted. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: in that case, I do agree with Uncle G and Tamzin when it comes to your edits as I implied above. Yes the cat needs to exist. But the IP can't create it. So effectively you're asking them to go somewhere else to get (probably) someone else to create it, for something which seemingly should clearly exist if the award exists. It would be easier for everyone involved to apply a bit of common sense and if the category should clear exist, rather than reverting nine times or whatever, just create the category so you're not forcing everyone to put in a lot more work. (While the IP may not have specifically asked for the cat to be created the first time around, it seems reasonable to interpret adding articles to a non-existent category as request for creation.)

I mean IMO even creating a completely blank category with no description is good enough, the IP or someone else could fix it then. Note that plenty of us don't do such stuff enough to use automated tools. It probably took me about 3-5 minutes to re-add the article to 8 categories. Since it was the most recent edit I think I could have used twinkle more easily if I wanted to, and added an edit summary however the IP clearly can't.

As I also said above, the Tbhotch case shows even if you had put in a little work, it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion and think the category shouldn't exist since there's probably no such award so meh, in this case it's a bit of a wash. But in other cases, maybe no so much. It's one thing to recommend an order to be followed. It's another to waste time forcing stuff to be repeated just because the order wasn't followed when it serves no real purpose.

If this was a case where it was extremely questionable if the category should exist, so as an inexperienced categoriser you're not sure and not willing to create it then fine, but it seems to be very far from that considering I have very little involvement in the field and I was fairly confident the category should exist. (My only question was whether the other articles should be in the immersive cat or a separate surround one. But that's a separate issue from the red link one as if anyone had created the cat it wouldn't be a red link.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories make me crazy, and I touch them as little as possible. (I cannot agree with a system that categorizes a dual-attribute thing as "Thing with X and Y" but the thing will not be found in the categories of "Thing with X" or "Thing with Y", even though the thing plainly has X, and it plainly has Y. I would rather see a great deal of redundancy so that each category page is a complete list.) All that to say I would rather not create a new category. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

81, I created both categories. Me and another editor populated the immersive audio album cat. For the engineered album one, maybe the the other editor or someone else will. Alternatively IMO you should feel free to populate it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll populate the engineered one.

On that last point, I remember seeing s type of link previously that gave the intersection of two categories. I believe that should be further developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.203.235 (talk • contribs)

Personal and active attack

Hi, I'm complaining to User:Курды - ослы that they sent me a picture of a donkey and made it look like my mother and father[149] and made me Personal attack and Persian language He has distorted me into a donkey and a terrorist![150] Let me tell you why, why? Because I am a Kurd. Please take care of the respected managers. Please, I ask the esteemed managers to take care and follow up. Ahrirrr (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

He also insulted Kurds, Kurdistan and me on their personal page. Aren't these enough to cut off a user's permanent access? Ahrirrr (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DanCherek for closing this user account, if you can please restore and censor this user's changes on my talk page and all seven of this user's changes

I ask the managers to close their accounts endlessly, you as an ordinary person, when your family, region and race are insulted for no reason and you are called a terrorist and a donkey, you will not be upset or from the point of view of a manager all this disrespect and personal attack in one frame It can be ignored for you and you only close that account for a while?!

I blocked the account indefinitely. Nobody should have to put up with personal attacks like that, though I'm afraid they do happen from time to time (and sometimes much worse). --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The name of the account is offensive as well, but I do not remember what we do in such cases.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Offensive usernames can be reported to WP:UAA and then blocked. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, I can revision-delete the logs which have this name, but I am not sure this conforms to our policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all of you who care about all races and races, sorry I got it wrong and thought the account was closed for a short time, thank you all dear managers. Ahrirrr (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe an account with an offensive username can be expunged from the records via Wikipedia:Oversight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  The global account seems to have been hidden or deleted. If it was hidden it hasn't worked here; I don't know if it's still possible for global accounts to be deleted. Peter James (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Since the users is indeffed on 3 wikis (for similar reasons, if Google Translate is correct), I requested a glock with name suppression two days ago, although as far as I can tell nothing has come of it yet - although CentralAuth doesn't seem to register the username, it's still visible and the mark-glocked script I'm using doesn't show it as locked. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Close request (DESYSOP2021)

I know that Requests for closure exists, but that can get very backlogged sometimes, and it seems like an RFC on such a contentious topic ( The recent Desysop policy RFC) should not languish forever waiting for a closure, so I'm posting it here in the hopes of getting a very experienced closer who has not voted on the RFC to close it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Desysop_Policy_(2021) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pushing an admin related close on an admin board, to push it to the front of the line, seems out of place and improper, to me. There is nothing in that RFC that requires it be pushed ahead of other closes. Why a user with less than 200 edits would do this, or know about this, I have no idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the problem with that page runs far deeper than the delayed close of this discussion, apropos of nothing in particular... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Definitely, but pushing an admin related RFC to the front of the line is still wrong. It is less important than content related RFCs, and smacks of taking care of our pet topics over content. There are plenty of eyes on that RFC, it doesn't need advertising for close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, as a new user they probably assumed that a very high-profile RFC that is over a week past the 30-day timeframe and has had discussion die down (exactly one !vote over the past 4 days) would be closed quickly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small --T*U (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Newish editors often have unrealistic expectations about the speed of "justice" in Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Another issue is that some folks think RFCs need to be closed the instant the bot removes the {{rfc}} tag; I even had to revert someone who re-added it (actually reverting the bot) because "the discussion is still open". This has been on my list of things to get to, but the last week was hella busy and I didn't have time for much of any editing, let alone a large RFC like this. Not saying that someone can't beat me to it, but I suspect there are a few non-voters that are eyeballing a close on it. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultations

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Request for comment: Universal Code of Conduct application

Further to the above, I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation, and community comments are invited. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Account deletion request

I really have no idea where to go, but I would like to delete my account : ) I forgot I had a Wikipedia account, and I never really used it either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu Bishara (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathieu Bishara: That's usually not possible, I'm afraid. You could request courtesy vanishing, but I'd recommend just abandoning the account. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE

Maybe an admin can take a look and close two cases that have been sitting. I've commented, as has another admin, but I've closed enough of these lately, we need a cross section of admin participating if possible. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• 5 days isn't really that bad for an AE report to be left open, especially when there's only two admins who have weighed in, minimal community commentary, and a backlog of a mere two reports. That's overwhelmingly out in front of the average AE backlog going back years. AE doesn't require a consensus, if you feel the threads are ready for closure you should by all means close them. Personally I don't, I'd like to leave them open for more feedback. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Credits (given) goes to Ymblanter for his March 25 closure of a report that was originally filed on Feb 22. El_C 01:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm also giving myself self-credit for my Noteduck note //ducking! edit summary. I forgot about that. Nice one, past me. El_C 01:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• If we're giving out pats on the back, I give myself credit for this one. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting more feedback and/or closing was the goal. AE has been unstaffed for some time now, hence the request. The cases are pretty simple, I could have closed them but I don't like closing several in a row. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Then I misinterpreted your intent as insisting the cases needed to be closed, rather than generally soliciting more feedback, which is always a good thing to do, of course. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass reverting spree

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.

---

Could someone please check recent edits of Archives908 (talk · contribs)? This user is on a mass reverting spree, undoing every edit of banned user CuriousGolden (talk · contribs), who was actually a prolific and useful contributor. The fact that a user is blocked does not mean that his every edit should be undone for no reason. I have no interest in getting engaged in an edit war with this user, but I think the community needs to look into his recent activity. Grandmaster 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A prolific and useful contributor? Nice try but that user was a Sockmaster, and that's why they are banned. Admins, if you look closely to my recent edits, you will notice that I am reverting the mass copyedits of the now banned CuriousGolden. This user has been suggesting that virtually all towns in Armenia once had an Azeri majority and used unverifiable sources to push their POV. Grandmaster, I have done nothing wrong and if I have violated any Wiki policies you cold have taken the time to notify me on my talk page. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of the sources you have removed as part of your recent reverting activity, in fact, qualify as reliable (information from state websites and third-party EU-based institutions). Also, when you reverted, you consistently wrote in your edit summary "removal of sockmaster copyedits" without even addressing the issue of source reliability. Furthermore, you have been removing content of a very specific nature, which was there before Curious Golden even became active on Wikipedia. That certainly cannot be justified by their sockmastery and is an alarming sign of bad-faith editing. Parishan (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenia did have a significant Azerbaijani population, so it is not impossible that many settlements in Armenia had sizeable Azerbaijani population. What you do is a mass reverting without any prior discussion or an attempt to reach a consensus. Reverting so many pages for no good reason is not in line with the rules. I was going to leave a message on your talk, as I did to another user doing the same kind of mass reverting, but I thought I would take it here first due to the sheer number of pages reverted. Grandmaster 21:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For no good reason? It seems as if you are almost defending the Sockmaster. Your true sympathies to CuriousGolden (talk · contribs) really shine through. CuriousGolden literally copyedited the exact same 2-3 sentences on dozens and dozens of articles. They were using multiple accounts and as such, I strongly believe the editor was not editing out of WP:GF. Needless to say, if I was violating policy, you had every opportunity to warn me on my talk page. As far as I see it, I was rectifying the POV edits of a Sockmaster. Nothing more. Archives908 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, can anyone provide me with any guidelines on dealing with Sockmasters appropriately? Clearly you both claim that I'm editing with ill intent, to which I assure you that I am not. As a sign of WP:GF I have stopped adjusting the Sockmasters edits until I know how best to proceed. Archives908 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"As far as I see it, I was rectifying the POV edits of a Sockmaster" - The problem is that you were not (a great deal of those edits were properly sourced), and it does not appear to me that this is related to your unfamiliarity with the rules. A simple example (one of many): the Azeri name had featured in this article for many years. Curious Golden added a language template and transliteration. Then once they were banned, you came in and removed the Azeri name altogether, as if it never existed. You did so in over one hundred articles. Yet when reverting their edits on articles that carried Armenian names, you for some reason were not at all bothered that there was an unsourced mention of a supposedly older Armenian toponym, and it did not occur to you to remove it. Could all of this be possibly driven by your concern for bad-faith edits brought about by a banned user? I find it unlikely. Parishan (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Archives908. Please see WP:GRAVEDANCE. Taking advantage of someone getting banned to undo all his edits and even previous versions of articles that existed before he joined WP is not acceptable. It would be good if you restored all the articles you reverted to their original versions, and discussed your proposed edits with other involved editors. Grandmaster 22:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Parishan If you have a closer look, you will notice that the Sockmaster added the translations 9 times out of 10, while not providing a single source. For the other times, I only removed unsourced material and explicitly stated that in my edit summary. How exactly am I (or any reader for that matter) supposed to know if what a Sockmaster added was legitimate or POV? Sadly, I am not a mind-reader. And to be fair, CuriousGolden was using multiple accounts, so their record was indeed tarnished. As such, I concluded that they were not here to build this encyclopedia. Again, I may have gone about it the wrong way but in my defense, I have never dealt with a Sockmaster before today (nor have I ever made so many edits in a single day) and wasn't aware of any protocols. I did try and search for wiki policies before I started this morning but couldn't find anything. Thanks Grandmaster for providing the link, I will thoroughly review it. And I do not have any issues reverting my own edits in the coming days if my actions violated policy. I will have a read through now. Archives908 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I was about to come to the defense of Archives908 and support them in that their removal of a sockmaster's edits is completely acceptable. I have myself been criticized for being too "soft" against sock edits when I have tried to rescue some good elements of the edits. In that case it was admittedly an editor using socks to reinstate edits that had been reverted, but still I would say that sock edits are in general "fair game". Looking a bit closer, however, I see that many, if not most of Archives908's edits with the edit summary removal of sockmaster copyedits actually do more than the edit summary says, systematically removing non-Armenian names. That is not OK. Removing content without explanation under the cover of doing something else is bordering on dishonesty. --T*U (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Sockmaster did in fact add most of the translations in previous edits, almost all of which were unsourced. Again, I assumed that the user was POV pushing, and I took the liberty to remove the unsourced information/copyedits. I realize now that I did go about it the wrong way. Prior to today, however, I had no experience in terms of dealing with the aftermath of Sockmasters and it was challenging for me to know what to keep/what to remove, what was POV/what was legitimate. I assumed that I was doing the right thing by removing the copyedits and the unsourced translations. And my record will show that I have not removed this much information before. Let me be crystal clear, I have no opposition to translations (never did) and don't mind reverting even my own edits. But, I do believe that the Sockmaster's claims/translations should all be properly sourced...unless I am mistaken about that too? Grandmaster provided me with the appropriate link, I would appreciate if the "noose around my neck" can be loosened for a moment, until I've had a chance to review it. Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have had a chance to review WP:GRAVEDANCE. I wasn't aware of this policy. Quite frankly, if this had been provided to me on my talk page earlier, I believe this could have been avoided. As per my understanding, it is against policy to revert edits without justification. My justification was that the copyedits and the vast majority of translations were added by a blocked Sockmaster and I sought to restore the pages out of GF. I reviewed the sources the Sockmaster provided but many of them did not support the claims. Which further reinforced me to believe that the Sockmaster's edits were done out of bad faith. The remaining translations were unsourced and there was no way for me to know if they were legitimate or added out of POV, yet alone if they were even correct. That was my rationale and justification- which was stated in my edit summaries. Fast-forward- I have thoroughly read the policy and can understand how my edits were perceived by others. I have zero intention to continue to remove content that the Sockmaster contributed, unless it directly violates any Wiki policy. I see that Parishan has already restored the translations and the text the Sockmaster added (with sources). I will not seek to revert those edits, but I will take time to verify that the sources check out because I was genuinely concerned about POV pushing on those articles. I thank Grandmaster for providing me with the policy guidelines to learn and hope to put this matter to rest. If there are any other related guidelines, please feel free to drop them on my talk page, as I'm always seeking to become a better editor. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep reverting the additions.....don't let them think that because of sheer volume we won't do anything. Zero leway.Moxy- 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• As usual, the "revert everything a sockpuppet account has ever done" religious mission of some users continues to damage and make the encyclopedia we work on worse. Nothing new there. If the sockpuppetting was about copyvios, then there would be some reasoning behind such reversion actions, but in other cases, it is almost always just vindictive and not based on actually improving anything. Silverseren^C 02:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This attitude is the reason they will keep being disruptive. Overwhelming the community with sheer volume so a few POV edits stick. The edits are not wanted by the community and should be removed on site.Moxy- 02:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Except in many, many cases, it is not POV edits that are reverted, but actual encyclopedic additions. There have been a number of users who were banned for non-article reasons and who sockpuppeted to still make articles. There was nothing wrong with the articles, but then when the sockpuppets were found out, all those additions and new articles were removed. And, in many cases, never made again by anyone else. Meaning that Wikipedia was made worse for no reason at all. Silverseren^C 02:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-first-close discussion

Context diffs: closure, correction, removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• With full support for the policy that allows reverting block-/ban-evading edits, is this what has happened here? I must be misreading the situation then, and I would long have said what NinjaRobotPirate did in the closure if I had seen that. Or are we talking about reversion of pre-block edits? Moxy perhaps? I'm confused. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I was wondering the same, and have asked NinjaRobotPirate to reconsider their close. Unfortunately, they are probably offline at the moment. No such user (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Wow, I saw this in passing (where I learned about Golden's ban in the first place) and definitely hadn't expected this close. As someone who was watching the RM drama as it happened, either I'm seriously misreading something or NinjaPirateRobot is. Vaticidalprophet 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• If the edits being reverted were made before their ban—and by the master, not by a sock—then BANREVERT does not apply, and these reverts should be undone as being without a policy basis. There's probably no reason to block Archives908—at the moment, anyway—but they should definitely read up on our banning/socking policies before attempting any more stunts like this. ——Serial 09:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's true. The cited policy only applies to the actions of sock puppets made in violation of a block or ban. I was tired when I closed the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

    Does that mean that you will be reversing your close, NinjaRobotPirate? Or at least amending it so that Archives908 is aware that such mass reversions did not have a policy basis? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC) struck 15:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC) due to responsiveness by Archives

• For what it's worth, I reverted or struck all eligible edits (that is, those made by Golden's sock Gnominite (talk · contribs) in RM discussions) when processing the SPI case, but none of Golden's edits qualify for BANREVERT because there is no evidence that the master account was evading a block or ban. Whether the edits he made are good or appropriate is a question for those familiar with the topic area to answer, but indiscriminate mass-reversion of them is not something that policy allows for in this case. --Blablubbs|talk 09:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that mass reversion is inappropriate here and I disagree completely with the close. CuriousGolden made a sock account about a month ago and used it to vote on about a dozen move requests that they started, that doesn't mean their other 12,500 edits they made over the last year are suddenly "Sockmaster edits" that require mass reversion per BANREVERT. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In hindsight, I am aware that the way I went about the edits may not have been the best. I don't know how many more times I can possibly repeat that. Are editors expected to be perfect 100% of the time? Surely, I am not perfect, but I have been more then respectful, open to dialogue, and eager to learn the proper policies this entire time. This was the first situation I encountered dealing with a Sockmaster in my years as an editor. I may have not had the best approach (due to a lack of policy knowledge) but I genuinely believed I was doing the right thing. Again, it is unreasonable to expect all editors to be perfect or know every singe Wiki policy verbatim. I was not even aware of Gravedance until yesterday, if I was, I would have had a better understanding in dealing with this. It also doesn't help that some editors have told me I did nothing wrong, while others are prepared to crucify me. This makes learning what is right/wrong even more confusing. Nonetheless, I have thoroughly reviewed the policies provided to me, have ceased further reversions, and am well aware of how to handle such scenarios moving forward. I have digested the feedback, learned from this, and hope to move forward a more knowledgeable editor. Archives908 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

    That's good to hear, Archives. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Just to clarify in response to the closing admin. The edits reverted were not made in violation of the ban, and they were not made by a sock account. Those were the edits of CuriousGolden made over the course of many months, before he created a sock account. I don't think that reverting those edits en masse is justified. Grandmaster 18:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You didn't do anything wrong by bringing this here. The first close was simply inaccurate on all counts. I've unclosed it. IMO it could be re-closed with an accurate closing statement in light of Archives908's response above, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for an article about Ogedengbe Agbogungboro

I would like to request an article about Ogedengbe Agbogungboro, a general from Ilesha who fought in the Kiriji War Algomancer (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:Requested articles a more helpful page for this request. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a vandalizer caused any article containing the name "Ogedengbe" in the title to be blocked Algomancer (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The title is blacklisted because of the years-long promotional efforts of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real sockfarm to promote a Nigerian pastor with a similar name, with many minor spelling variations to evade page-level restrictions. Algomancer, I can't remove the blacklist entry, but if you can start your article as a WP:DRAFT or as a subpage in your user space, and then let me know where it is, I can move it to the correct title and you can work on it freely. The blacklist only prevents creating the page, not editing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Algomancer, the title itself is not the WP:COMMONNAME (at least this what it seems like). There's a scholarly article about the subject titled Ogedengbe of Ilesha: an Introductory Note (as mentioned by J.D.Y. Peel). "Ogedengbe Agbógun Gbórò" is the naming variation used by BBC Yoruba. There are some WP:RS concerning the subject, so it can be deemed notable enough. If you want, I can expand a draft article in my sandbox. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Actually, my mistake, the blacklist prevents page creation in any namespace, so you'll need an admin to create the page as a draft or userspace subpage anyway. Let me know where you want it and I'll be happy to create it for you, I just don't want to create empty pages in the article namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• User:Ivanvector/Ogedengbe of Ilesa now exists. I've created the talk page (which also hits the blacklist) for you, too, as there is already a question to be answered. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G: I moved it to article space for you. It's at Ogedengbe of Ilesa. Thanks for your contribution! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Algomancer: who actually requested the article — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I may never have been more wrong than when I wrote above that "You may find Wikipedia:Requested articles a more helpful page for this request." Kudos to those responsible. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia canvassing on Horn of Africa topics

There appears to be active off-Wikipedia recruitment and canvassing to push ethnic POV on Nur ibn Mujahid. This started following a discussion of fringe additions on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Nur_ibn_Mujahid, to which editors came to consensus of said additions being undue minority views, and thus removed from the article. This was promptly followed by off-wiki canvassing on Somali forums: [151] [152], which resulted in two fresh single-purpose accounts registering to brute-force minority POV. Editor CSI99283 registered within hours of canvassing and proceeded to edit war [153], whilst editor Sade Tan registered shortly after and proceeded to votestack on every single discussion involving CSI99283, including on CSI99283's own talk page [154]. Off-wiki canvassing on this specific Somali forum has been done previously by long-term vandal Middayexpress [155]. Given the Horn of Africa project is currently under standard discretionary sanctions, I am hoping something can be done about this clear case of canvassing and possible SOCK/MEAT. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. First of all, that is an absolutely wild allegation made in bad faith, simple because you didn't like our propsals. I used to frequent the Nur ibn Mujahid article for a long time before I ever chose to register. I never accused you of cheating or doing something questionable nor did I ever force my opinion on anyone else. These are discussions going on these boards and I kept it there. If I wanted to force it, these discussions might not even be happening. Someone could have forced edit the article, but that's not happening is it? Unacceptable allegations. Sade Tan (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't follow edits to the article itself other than initially to see what the edits were about, but I read the FTN thread. Just by what was going on there I also suspected sockpuppetry, but then noticed that one editor, CSI99283 was apparently less experienced (canvassed is indeed likely). If I understand, Sade Tan would be 86.18.37.245 who then registered (and stopped IP editing)? —PaleoNeonate – 11:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to any admins reading this that the Horn of Africa is a recently-authorized DS area (and this is exactly the kind of thing those DS were put in place for), so DS-based protection is fair game. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I literally signed on from my phone. I still don't know what I did was wrong? I didn't edit any articles. Was just having a normal discussion giving an alternative point of view. Is that allowed over here? If it isn't I'll be glad to leave forever. Sade Tan (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing takes many forms and is not limited to editing articles, attempting to game consensus is disruptive. Evidence presented above demonstrates off-wikipedia canvassing on part of CSI99283 and yourself. Within minutes of registration, you methodically responded in support of CSI99283 across three separate discussions, including their own talk page (which you had no way of knowing about) as well as Wikipedia:Fringe_theories [156], [157], [158], not the typical behaviour of new good-faith editors. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Best bet is going to be ECP of any pages that are the subject of canvassing (again, under DS) - Nur ibn Mujahid is already ECP'd as of a few days ago, got any others? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So far it seems to be confined to that one article, but given that canvassing took place on the same site used previously by Middayexpress there may be more single purpose accounts/sleepers. I'll report any further instances I come across. Many thanks GN. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)