Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360

Nihonjoe and COI

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

---

It was recently brought to the community's attention – through an external online publication which I won't link to here but which can be easily Googled up – that Nihonjoe has been editing articles in which he has a significant conflict of interest. These are articles about his employer, which Nihonjoe has significantly expanded mostly with promotional material, and three articles about his employer's products.

• Auqaveo – Nihonjoe's employer. Nihonjoe adds promotional stuff, mostly a high-profile customer listing[4]
• GMS (software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe adds version history and a Reception section with customer testimonials[5]
• WMS (hydrology software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe adds customer use cases[6]
• SMS (hydrology software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe makes minor amendments[7]

It may be worth noting that Aquaveo is a small privately-held company that occupies just one office suite on a multi-office floor of 14,000 sq feet.

Nihonjoe has been anything but forthcoming about his COI:

1. First, Sagflaps politely asked Nihonjoe about his COI[8]. Nihonjoe replied evasively, stating that he was never "paid to edit the article" [9], repeating it twice. An admin of 18+ years will surely know the difference between COI and PAID.
2. Nihonjoe did not acknowledge his links with Aquaveo until later, initially claiming that the company is just found within one of many topics I find interesting because he's edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes[10][11] It needed a direct question from Sojourner in the earth for Nihonjoe to confirm that he had indeed been employed by Aquaveo.
3. At first, Nihonjoe claimed that he had edited these articles before he started working for Aquaveo.[12] Then he refused to say whether he had a COI when editing them,[13] and only after a further challenge by Sojourner later conceded that he had edited them while being employed.[14]
4. Nihonjoe claimed that all his edits had been to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references.[15] It is unclear whether "removing marketing" also included pushing the article about Aquaveo to the front page of Wikipedia.[16]
5. Other than Nihonjoe, the four articles were created and edited mostly by two other accounts: Edit42 and 42of8. While Nihonjoe asserted that he doesn't know these accounts, a long-time Wikipedia editor and admin unaware who else in a small team could have worked on the company's Wikipedia presence, additionally with a shared interest in Brandon Sanderson as the case is, feels highly unusual.
6. I have not scrutinised Nihonjoe's alleged edits to competitors' products as mentioned by Levivich.[17]. Also, I did not go into other allegations mentioned in the external analysis (e.g., allegations of posting promo reviews for a book allegedly edited by his wife, etc.), as they are unrelated to Wikipedia.

It was a week ago that Sagflaps asked Nihonjoe about COI. Yesterday I politely suggested to Nihonjoe to come clean on it before the community starts its own investigation. He responded that he doesn't have time and anyway wasn't inclined to share "personal information".[18]

The Aquaveo article is now on its way to deletion due a forming consensus that his employer lacks notability.

I wouldn't like for this COI problem to overshadow Nihonjoe's 120,000+ positive contributions to Wikipedia over 18+ years, and countless hours of unpaid (?) work he has put into this project. However, if the editor community is to trust him – an admin and bureaucrat – to enforce Wikipedia policies fairly and transparently, it becomes necessary to address the evidence of the alleged policy violations.

With this, I'd like to open the floor for discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Kashmiri, thanks. Yes, it would seem, to an uninvolved eye, that Nihonjoe has, through evasive and occasionally outright misleading statements, been gaslighting the community since the issue came to light elsewhere. This is a clear breach of both his conditions of conduct (undeclared COI, for example) and accountability (failure to adequately communicate). ——Serial 12:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

My first immediate thought was: "This all could easily have been avoided if he simply followed the disclosure policy." Then I next began to wonder as to whether an employee of a company could escape needing to disclose COI if the company were particularly large and there was no immediate bright-line connection between them and the business ownership, i.e. they were too far down the totem pole to have a legitimate interest in making the company articles look "nice". As WP:EXTERNALREL says, how close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. However, in this case as Kashmiri has said, Aquaveo is a very small company that develops specialized scientific software, so this seems far more concerning. In particular, the response regarding the other two accounts editing the article also sets off alarm bells in my mind immediately.

I am taken aback that we are having this discussion about a bureaucrat. In the interests of WP:AGF, I cannot immediately assume paid editing; I hope maybe this could be a case of misinterpreting or misunderstanding the policy. But the only way to be sure of that is through Nihonjoe holding himself accountable, and I feel only the Arbitration Committee has the capacity to deal with private evidence in this manner, particularly if it is potentially revealing of personal information as Nihonjoe says. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Diff #1 is eight years old. The rest (which are mostly formatting) are five years old. The community's attitude to COI/paid editing has changed significantly in that time (largely as a result of professional marketing firms using significant resources to covertly influence our content). Is there anything more recent or that was explicitly against the rules as they stood at the time the edits were made? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not quite that though. They have known for many years that they have had an undisclosed conflict of interest with each of these companies/products, and have edited their articles up until relatively recently (for Aquaveo, Nohinjoe's most recent edit, while a couple of years ago, was only seven edits ago). In some cases, as recently as last year. Community attitudes towards PAID and COI have indeed changed (they've got tighter). But admins are expected to keep themselves fully informed of changes to, and stay up to date with, policy. So either they did that and ignored them or did not and did not realise.

None of this addresses possibly the greater issue, of course, which is vague communication and repeated attempts at swerving questions. ——Serial 13:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell I recall COI policy was fairly strict in 2015 when Nihonjoe first edited about his employer: [19]. It has remained that strict until today, and Nihonjoe's last COI edits were as recently as last summer.[20]

Already at their 2007 RfB, Nihonjoe proclaimed: I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. [21]

In view of this, I find it challenging to try to justify his editing by a "changing community attitude" as you seem to suggest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent the private evidence to the arbcom email, so they should be aware of it. Sagflaps (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Who is BurroWrangler? They appear to be a very old account, which has only edited things related to WMS. Now, they have made an edit out of nowhere. See Special:Diff/1209231706 Sagflaps (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They were likely notified by email after their article was nominated for deletion. Their commented in the wrong place, too (shouldn't be Talk). — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've reviewed some information, and it generally seems like the editor BurroWrangler is not a sockpuppet. For privacy, I won't discuss here. Sagflaps (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's no surprise that the environmental modeling software company with four Wikipedia articles is the one that has a Wikipedia admin on its payroll. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• This is all deeply unfortunate. It brings to mind the oft-repeated truism that the cover-up can be as bad as the crime. With the way this has played out so far, the community's level of trust in Nihonjoe at the moment does not seem to be at the level needed for him to effectively serve as a bureaucrat. Given the off-wiki evidence, this seems like a matter where there is a role for ArbCom, who I trust to take appropriate action. Sdkb ^talk 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The thought that I've been mulling over is that there's no indication of administrator tools or bureaucrat tools being abused here, or that they would be. The lack of trust is squarely the lack of trust to write article content properly, with a tool that even people without accounts have. Although Nihonjoe removing praise published in a predatory journal in Special:Diff/829120321 and in Special:Diff/828998968 in 2017 removing much of the content that had earlier been added in 2015 by Edit42 and a Utah IP address in Special:Diff/608274825/650181752 does indicate that the diff above that covers 21 edits and several users is perhaps blurring some details here. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Trust unfortunately isn't something that can be segmented out that narrowly. The lost trust here applies not just to whether or not he will COI edit in the future, but more broadly to whether he will abide by the rules, show accountability, and overall behave responsibly. And even if we're looking more narrowly at only COI, that's still something that could intersect with 'crat work (e.g. judging consensus on whether to promote/demote an editor with COI issues).

    I'm not yet at the point where I see no path for him to retain his 'crat bit, but to do so he will need to show accountability rather than defensiveness to begin to restore the lost trust. Sdkb ^talk 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Generally, sysops in the past have lost their permissions for things that are not related to their actions as administrators. As you said, it's more about community trust. Sagflaps (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yep. Blatant COI is often blockable at sight. Not using admin tools when COI editing makes no difference. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat in particular is fundamentally a position of community trust more than it is a technical position. The technical right to add administrators and bureaucrats isn't really necessary, because a steward could do it. Bureaucrats are trusted for their good decision making. Sagflaps (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Well, that wasn't the entirety of your edits on that day, right? Actually, in that edit series you replaced some of the content (including a single predatory reference) with much longer content of similarly promotional character.[22] Anyway, I'm not sure what benefit you see in going edit by edit and trying to defend them when the problem is not really in the quality of your editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Striking the entire comment – I regret I was quicker to respond than to read. Thanks, Primefac! — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Kashmiri, you are replying to Uncle G, who did not add the text to which you refer. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

To address various things brought up here:

• It's already obvious I didn't create any of the articles in question. Just making sure that's stated.
• Yes, I should have declared a COI when I first edited Aquaveo. That was a mistake on my part. As for why, that was going on a decade ago (around 9 years, I think), so I don't know exactly what might have been going through my mind at that time. I suspect I did not because I wasn't editing while on the clock, I was not ever directed by anyone there to make edits or told how to edit, and all of my edits were attempting to improve the articles to better meet the neutrality and sourcing requirements because they were not very good before I worked to improve them. So, my brain likely interpreted it as not being a COI because Aquaveo wasn't involved in any way in the decisions I was making, and I wasn't trying to promote them. And, as I mentioned, I have edited many river and lake articles over the years, and often run across Aquaveo-related references and such when doing so, even before I worked for them. Within that small niche of river, lake, and related water science, they are well known. I nominated the article for DYK because I do that for many of the articles I improve significantly or create. Even with the work I did, however, I don't think the Aquaveo article currently meets the requirements to be kept (and I've said as much in that discussion). I haven't participated in the WMS discussion, but I suspect it's also not quite meeting the requirements to be kept after a quick glance at its current refs.
• I don't have any way to prove the other accounts mentioned here (Edit42, 42of8, and BurroWrangler) are not mine (it's really impossible to prove a negative like that). I can only say that I didn't create those accounts, I don't know who did, I've never used any of them, and I don't know who did/does use them. Given the somewhat geeky/nerdy nature of Aquaveo's products and how many geeky/nerdy people use them, and given how popular Brandon Sanderson is around the world, it's not a stretch to imagine that others who use or work on Aquaveo products might also be fans of Sanderson.
• Kashmiri's representation of my comment as He responded that he doesn't have time and anyway wasn't inclined to share "personal information". is rather disingenuous. I said that I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I can't spend every waking moment here. in response to him posting a section on my talk page claiming that I was being silent and not responding to things. He posted this around 24 hours after I had last responded to something from him. He may have had a point if it had been a week or even a few days, but he needs to be a little more patient in waiting for someone to reply or make a comment.

I should have indicated my COI. That was a mistake on my part. I take following the policies and guidelines here very seriously, and I didn't do that here when I should have. It was never my intention to be evasive, but rather to protect my privacy. I apologize for any appearance of evasiveness and for not indicating my COI as I should have done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm willing to accept this. My intent when I posted the original message on your talk page was that you would realize it's not worth fighting over and declare the COI to avoid further scrutiny into your personal life, and to placate the issues mentioned in the external site where this was originally brought up. Are there any other COI concerns that might come up? If so, I think it's better to just declare them now, since people on the internet can be ruthless. Sagflaps (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not disclosing a COI is a big mistake, but the impact has been pretty trivial and they've owned up to it now. To me, a bigger concern is that participants here don't seem to care about the effort to dig into Nihonjoe's personal details off-wiki, outing and doxing him on a site known for harassment of Wikipedians, and publishing all of those allegations (even the thin speculation about sockpuppetry) here on-wiki. Is outing and doxing really tolerated by this community as long as you actually find a speck of dirt in their past? Could this really not have been settled in a completely private manner? I suppose it does send a clear message: watch those COIs or you lose all rights to privacy and discretion. The cat's out of the bag at this point, so fair to have a conversation about what to do, but it's not Joe who's primarily lost my trust here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What can be done, though, about a place "known for harassment of Wikipedians"? A description, incidentally, that could perhaps as easily describe One Montgomery Tower, San Francisco  :) ——Serial 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Doxxing that occurs on another site - even if it's triggered by WP editing - is something that's essentially impossible to deal with. People suck. I imagine most of us think COI editing is bad, and doxxing is bad, and different people assign different levels of outrage to each. The change I feel I've seen in recent years is that people seem almost unconcerned about doxxing if it's in the service of sniffing out a COI. I know others disagree, but this feels like if I got 5 years in jail for shoplifting a Snickers, and when I complained, I'm told "well you shouldn't have broken the law". I suspect there are those here who don't understand the point I'm trying to make because they would agree with the 5-year sentence. I can simultaneously be disappointed in NihonJoe, but even more disappointed in "Eddie Lands-something", who I'm sure has no WP account and no history of disagreement with NihonJoe on-wiki. The moral of the story is threefold, kids: (1) Don't edit with a COI, (2) Don't link your WP username with a username anywhere else in the world, and (3) Always remember that there are a lot of smart and mean-spirited people out there, who think they're on the side of angels. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to prevent bad behavior off-wiki in order to decide it should stay off-wiki. To deal with it, all it takes is an admin to decide WP:OUTING, WP:PROBLEMLINKS, the rest of WP:HA, etc. still exist and that it doesn't matter if a few influential editors try to add an "unless I think they deserve it" clause to the policy. It's disappointing, along the lines of your Snickers example, that even in such a frankly pretty trivial case of wrongdoing that nobody has any reservations about outing a fellow editor. I might expect to see the erosion of our harassment enforcement in the case of, say, the uncovering of a large UPE sockfarm, or an admin showing a pattern of blocking users to win disputes or something more egregious, but this is just some mild COI editing-while-crat. We can have all the proposals we want at WP:RFA2024, but if our admins are specifically targeted for harassment because they're an admin and nobody will go to bat for their basic humanity and dignity, it's pointless. Speaking of unfair things asked of admins: you're drawing a moral here, but you're an admin; by choosing what rules to enforce or ignore, you are creating the conditions from which we can extract a moral. Adding for the record, in case I need to be clearer: My point is not that there's "no there there". COI editing bad. Yes. But if outing is required to prove it, though, keep it private. Go to the editor, go to arbcom, and let them do what needs to be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware - beyond obvious hints about what external site this doxxing is on - of any personal info disclosed on-wiki that NJ hasn't admitted to. If it exists, please tell Oversight. If there is more adminning (rather than OSing) to be done (policy-based, which an admin can act on, not morals-based, which we can complain about) then point it out here. Do you mean redacting references to that external site? Do you mean any mention of the COI editing, based on a "fruit of the poisonous tree" philosophy? I think at this point that would be pointless. If you have concrete suggestions of what admin action could be taken, I'm open to hearing them. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

regarding the part you added after I started typing: I agree, private arbcom or private discussion would have been more appropriate. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Putting this here as a response to Rhododendrites, never sure where to go in these long threaded discussions.) Yes, this is unpleasant. But COI editing is a breach of trust and the community has a very high expectation of bureaucrats, higher than for admins and I believe higher than for arbitrators. People differ. But for me personally, the argument in the off-wiki article was a bit mountain out of a molehill-ish, but Nihonjoe's responses to the issue being raised on his talk page fell short of WP:ADMINACCT. I expect any admin, when someone queried whether they had edited articles about their employer, to check the timeline to see whether they had indeed fallen afoul of the (current) standard. I expect that all the more of a bureaucrat. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree about COI and initial responses. I'm not trying to absolve Joe. My question is, why are you ok with people talking about, linking to, and repeating the outing/doxing publicly on-wiki? If it were handled privately, Joe would get his trouting (or worse), own up to COIs, etc. As soon as it's on-wiki, however, it's a violation of our behavioral policies on harassment. Both can be true: Joe should've addressed this/fixed this after contacted about it, and Kashmiri, et al. have violated our harassment policy. It's extremely disappointing that the former is treated as a cardinal sin and the latter as, basically, worth it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The community as a whole has become very concerned about COI, particularly when it's about one's employer. It's important to avoid the appearance of a double standard for admins, since we are coming down like a ton of bricks on ordinary editors. On private handling, I don't know that it wasn't raised privately (via e-mail or at ArbCom). So far as I can see (I obviously can't see the suppressed IP edit in the same location that preceded it), the first on-wiki mention was Sagflaps' hypothetical at Nihonjoe's talk page. That looks to me like an attempt to have a quiet word. The response was less than forthcoming. So while as I say I think the exposé was overblown, my disappointment in Nihonjoe remains greater. (This later misstatement, which I assume was based on faulty memory, doesn't help my impression of Nihonjoe's responsiveness to concerns; as I said, as part of accountability I expect an admin, when the serious issue of COI is raised, to immediately check the timeline to see whether they had in fact contravened current standards.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• A major red flag for me was when Nihonjoe told the OP at the AfD to Please stop harassing me (diff), seemingly for no apparent reason... El_C 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • OP effectively outs him, opens an ANI thread, nominates an article at AfD based on that outing, publicizes a link to external harassment (all of which is a flagrant disregard of WP:HA and WP:PROBLEMLINKS), and in your judgment not only is none of that actually harassment ("no apparent reason"), but it's a red flag that Nihonjoe called it harassment? This place sometimes... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That is an incredibly distorted view, but I see that you've decided to defend Nihonjoe at all cost, which is a position I suppose. El_C 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — My edit summary was meant to read no to entrenched defense of wrongdoing — that at was a typo. El_C 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Flummoxing response. Haven't defended Nihonjoe at all. Just wishing someone would defend our harassment policy. With that, I think I'll part ways with this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, you've done little but that. You taking a break from this thread is a good idea, though, I'd grant you that. El_C 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and it definitely comes across as strange to ask them to "stop harassing" them. I thought that was a perfectly acceptable conversation that was moving forward productively. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned off-wiki, this is a misdemeanor rather than a felony. I liked the earlier TROUT close and think that's still an appropriate way to end the dramahz. Carrite (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This conversation, which was disproportionate from the outset, has outlived its usefulness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  When an advanced permission holder is credibly accused of violating core policies and admits it (after first being evasive and then giving an untrue answer), shutting down the discussion within hours just seems like an effort to sweep it under the rug. This is especially true when the discussion is still very active, and when "loss of trust" has been raised. Personally I don't think this will go very far unless there are more violations, but trying to stifle discussion of a serious issue before it has run its course just doesn't look good. "I don't think this is serious enough for sanctions" would be a legitimate opinion, but "Stop discussing this confirmed violation" isn't. I'm sure there are functionaries keeping an eye on this thread for actual outing that we really can't discuss on-wiki. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then maybe someone should move the discussion forward in a constructive direction. Because the biggest thing that's happened since the thread was reopened is that the admin who reopened it belittled Rhododendrites into leaving the discussion and then took a parting shot for good measure. Did that look good? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So says the person who chronically diminishes civility. Looks like they moved on to diminishing COI now. Not an improvement. El_C 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the the biggest [biggest?] thing that's happened since the thread was reopened -diminishing: Yngvadottir made an insightful comment since (diff), as did Hey man im josh (diff), as did Usedtobecool (diff). The diminishing runs deep. El_C 04:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit I communicated rather clumsily in that thread from a month-and-a-half ago, but I don't think that gives you the right to cast aspersions against me. Your treatment of Rhododendrites and myself is verging on conduct unbecoming of an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not that you seem concerned with fairness towards me, but the Usedtobecool comment came 40 minutes after my comment. Evidently you were too focused on discrediting me to pay careful attention. The other comments are certainly insightful, but I believe the negative impact of your behavior outweighs them (a belief that is not consistent with your claim that I chronically diminish civility; perhaps you should set aside your disdain for me and revisit that assertion). Frankly, I don't believe I've done anything to deserve this level of contempt from you. I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect an admin to refrain from grandstanding against a fellow editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unmoved by your accusing me of "grandstanding." I speak plainly and directly, also about you diminishing others, which I maintain the facts bear. You attempting to turn what you called a parting shot, or my criticism of you ("contempt"), into some kind of egregious conduct — well, I obviously disagree. But the timeline, okay sure. El_C 06:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want plain and direct speech, that suits me just fine. Broadly speaking, I support our civility policy; at times I have criticized the manner in which others sought to enforce it. If you intend to persist in publicly labeling me as someone who diminishes incivility despite my protestations to the contrary, it would appear that I will just have to put up with having my name dragged through the mud by an admin.

At any rate, your decision to personalize our interaction has clearly added more heat than light. Likewise, your snippy replies to Rhododendrites added more heat than light, even after Rhododendrites announced he was withdrawing from the discussion. In short, regardless of how much insight one derives from the comments that were made by other editors since you re-opened this thread, you have been raising the temperature and pushing the discussion in directions that are not constructive. I don't appreciate being mocked by an admin for my suggestion that this thread should be either pushed forward constructively or closed. You aren't above criticism, and you certainly shouldn't respond to criticism with aspersions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mock you, I criticized you. If you're unable to distinguish the two, then I'm sorry to say, but that's on you. Everyone is subject to criticism, which I'm obviously not exempt of, but neither are you. I've nothing further to add at this time. El_C 06:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to be unmoved. So says the person who chronically diminishes civility has an unmistakable mocking, dismissive tone. It's certainly not constructive criticism; it's nothing more than a bald-faced aspersion. It's too bad you have nothing further to add beyond doubling-down. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Basic facts do not seem to be in dispute. And there is no consensus so far on how bad it was. The community has been moving heavily in the direction of giving crats more responsibility. The level of trust required for that position has increased if it's moved.
  If this were the case of a regular non-admin, with a comparable amount of contributions, I do not think we would immediately move to ban. But a topic ban seems like an obvious outcome. Said non-admin would not pass RFA for the next 5-6 years, maybe ever. Now, do we want admins who clearly wouldn't pass RFA, not because they've made enemies doing their job but the opposite? The answer has not always been a no, in the past. The bigger question yet is, do we want someone who would not pass an RFA, clerking RFAs, closing RFAs, partaking in cratchats and closing cratchats?
  To concerns of outing, they are not without merit. OP could/should have said, offwiki evidence exists and functionaries/arbs have been made aware of it. It was a ways too far to say the evidence was easily googled. OP has previously been oversighted recently, and presumably made adequately aware of OS policy, so it is truly unfortunate that more than was necessary was revealed yet again. It is also worth pointing out that ARBCOM as a institution is partly responsible for these kinds of incidents. They take a millennium to do anything, and routinely fail to assure the community that they are even doing something, making people impatient. When matters become public that should really be handled by arbcom, and it is obvious that arbs know of it, it should not require three days of ten people calling on them to say something for them to give a "yeah, we know."
  tldr; Nihonjoe should not be editing those topics anymore however that is achieved, and we need to find out Nihonjoe still retains the trust of the community to act as a crat in RFAs, however that is achieved. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given the edits and the timeframe, this does seem to be a mountain out of a molehill. Nihonjoe did screw up by not owning up more aggressively, but I disagree that the policies on COI was that strong in 2015. They were still be developed and there was a very strong anti-paid attitude at the time, much stronger than now (many, including Jimbo, said paid shouldn't edit AT ALL), so anyone with a mild COI was incentivized to not mention it if they really were not paid and not spamming their COI articles. I think Nihonjoe now need to either choose to avoid all COI editing completely, or declare their COI on the talk page. I did the same before I semi-retired. I think a lot of people are rightfully pissed at Nihonjoe, but mainly for wasting their time by not being more forthcoming from the start. Most of us have some kind of COI, most of us have some kind of job, after all. It's how you manage the COI, and disclose it that matters. I don't see any reason for a larger case, or continuing this. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So when they write in their RfB that: I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest (diff) — that is immaterial to you? El_C 06:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The question was about how they would use the Crat bit. Not the admin bit, not the editor buttons. ":4. Do you pledge never to promote a person you are affiliated with or to discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense?", so it doesn't apply here, as there isn't any claim he misused any Crat tools or supposed authority as a Crat. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that conflict of interest (even the appearance of) is still the thing that it is (i.e. WP:COI), but I concede your point. El_C 06:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Had he simply put a statement saying he had a COI on his user page back in '15, there wouldn't have been a problem with the actual editing (even if others reverted him), so the real problem is disclosure, not editing. Was not disclosing the COI stupid? Probably. Was it so egregious that I have lost faith in his ability to properly use the admin and crat tools? No. My guess is the majority of people have some COI and edit without disclosing, but try to be reasonable and fair, including a lot of admin. I would bet money on it. For me, it's about having a response that is proportional to the actual "crime". Arb can look closer if they feel they need, but dragging him in the mud, publicly, seems overkill. We have our pound of flesh, I think we can quit whipping this horse. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: My guess is the majority of people have some COI and edit without disclosing — I wouldn't have thought that to be so. I certainly do not have one, nor have I ever (though you'd have to take my word for it). RE: Was it so egregious that I have lost faith in his ability to properly use the admin and crat tools? — I don't know. Like Usedtobecool above, I have reservations. Finally, I personally will not undo another closure of this thread (once is enough for me). El_C 07:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't thinks thats true... But if you do what COI topics have you edited without disclosing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"My guess is the majority of people have some COI and edit without disclosing" - definitely not. That really is telling, Dennis :-) "Don't edit about yourself/your employer/your family/friends/etc" is like Wikipedia COI 101. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is true that a significant chunk of Wikipedia pages have undisclosed COI text. Most companies after all have PR teams, and don't really care about Wikipedia policy. But, I wouldn't say that most Wikipedia editors have made undetected/undisclosed COI edits. Sagflaps (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Pareto principle. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, I can entirely understand his failure to disclose back then (I see you've adopted the same mountain out of a molehill phrase as me). But now in 2024, we're bound by current rules. What concerns me, a lot, is that when Sagflaps asked, he didn't say "You know, now that I think about it, you have a point" and fix the omission at that point. Issue defused—consensus and procedures change—and we might even have been able to keep the article. But it's more than wasting the community's time (hell, all noticeboard discussions waste some time). I'm weighing in here because of the accountability issue (under 2024 rules). He's fallen well below my expectations on that. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir mentioned double standards. Well let us not apply them as a couple of people are doing, then.

  How would we treat use of the ordinary editing tool in this manner if it were a person that did not have any extra tools? I know what I would do, because it is what I have done for years, which is point to User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and observe that Special:Diff/828998968 is completely contrary to that, citing the company's own wiki as a source. (Even if one grants that in practical terms only company employees can edit the wiki, citing a wiki that is "user-supported" and apparently open to all is by itself a well-settled poor choice for sourcing, let alone combining that with what I talk about which is citing a company's own WWW site, which of course that wiki is. And whatever the back-and-forth over conflict of interest standards as of 2017 may be, citing wikis and autobiographical sources where companies write about themselves has been regarded as poor practice since years before I wrote Special:Diff/66348491 in 2006.)

  I would definitely ask Nihonjoe what on Earth xe thought that xe was doing removing the Journal of Hydrology (peer-reviewed, Elsevier), the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (peer-reviewed, CUP/SAEA), and Sedimentary Geology (peer-reviewed, Elsevier) and replacing them with the company's wiki. But I certainly have never called for the Arbitration Committee to remedy such a situation, in the many times that I have encountered people writing articles using the subject's own WWW sites. I'm not in favour of applying a double standard in that respect here.

  As I said above, there is no evidence here of mis-use of any tool other than the tool that everyone has, or any indication of, or even logical scenario for, there being so. About the only scenario that I could dream up is the utterly outlandish one of a bureaucrat getting all of those company employees administrator accounts on this wiki, which has many practical difficulties on the English Wikiepdia (in contrast to the recent very different situation on the Croatian Wikipedia with a bureaucrat). The trust issue is about the edit tool.

  And when it comes to trust, certainly my trust has diminished slightly in editors who just parroted off-wiki accusations of sock-puppetry without looking into them, and who even went as far as to rail against going through things edit by edit. Someone who is unwilling to look conscientiously and diligently at an edit history in detail to work out the facts of a matter is someone who I think is the person whom we should be wary of entrusting advanced tools to. Let's avoid that double standard, too. How many times does the world have to be burned by bad World Wide Web Detectives before the caution to be wary sinks in?

  I know that I for one (and I suspect many other administrators) have seen enough sock-puppeteers to know that a claim that account B waits 3 years and entirely undoes the edits of account A is a foundation for a claim of sock-puppetry that wouldn't pass muster at SPI. The person who adds content and cites peer-reviewed journals I for one would not conclude to be the same person as the person who removes that content and cites the company's wiki. (The only conclusions I might draw is that Edit42 was editing logged out at one point, and from deleted edits 42of8 definitely has some conflict of interest concerns and from talk page contributions such as Special:Diff/572217141 has a far stronger behavioural connection to Edit42.) I'll let Beeblebrox and JzG (who even edited the same article to remove predatory journals just like Nihonjoe) speak to the asinine idea that putting HHGTTG references in a username is grounds for drawing any conclusion at all.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uncle G, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that in the 2018 edit you linked, Nihonjoe removed only 2 of the journal articles you mention: the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics citation was retained, and in fact became the focus of the paragraph. Nihonjoe replaced a section headed "Examples of GMS implementation" with bullet points with a briefer summary in which this one implementation was highlighted and a table of versions of the software, which so far as I can see is the only place where he cited "xmswiki.com": a named reference to the version history there. He changed the balance of the article towards the technical; I don't see why he shortened the material on implementations, removing those 2 journal citations and giving added prominence to the one he left, but the wiki use was understandable given that he wanted to add the table and reference every line in it. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Nihonjoe did a stupid thing. (Personal attack removed), but a slap with the Wikitrout seems more appropriate. And Kashmiri does not come off well here, for obviously frivolous and vindictive AfD nominations. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG: Please desist from attacking fellow editors. Please assume they are here to help rather than hinder. ——Serial 13:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note that there may also be COI issues with Nihonjoe's Latter Day Saints related edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The heat/light boundary

• "More heat than light" is such an overused cliche for closing threads. Dear colleagues, if there is more heat than light, remove the heat not the light! Not both. It's not a good idea to tell everyone they can't have a discussion because some people are acting like jerks. Let's stop doing this. The next time you see more heat than light, remove the heat so the light can continue. Don't just shut it all down with a cliche. This public service announcement brought to you by Levivich (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  And if I hadn't used those words you'd find something else to complain about. I've re-opened the above section. Primefac (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  To save everybody time I've started WP:WIKICLICHE. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested specific subsection

I propose that ArbCom formally remind Nihonjoe that communication is required, and that under WP:ADMINACCT, the expectations for administrators to respond to concerns are higher than for regular editors. I am sure that regardless of what discussions they may have conducted or still be conducting on the matter, they will be able to post such a statement on their noticeboard or at his user talk without much extra effort.

The closure of this discussion when the last substantive posts to it were (a) a long post by Uncle G a primary focus of which was raising a new point about Nihonjoe's editing and (b) a gross personal attack by JzG is not merely bad optics; it risks establishing a precedent in favor of Nihonjoe's inadequate responses prior to his statement here. The closure has made a statement from the Arbs necessary, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking with my Arb hat on, and asking a genuine question - Nihonjoe has declared their COI; what more do we need to tell him? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like for arbcom to find facts; they are the ones with access to all the evidence and the authority to investigate. Nihonjoe is still editing the AFDs. We need them to declare all their COIs and promise that there aren't any more of them. We need arbcom to determine that their story checks out with the timeline of verifiable events. After all that, we need arbcom to tell us that they are satisfied we can all move on. If all arbcom gives out is a reminder, it is completely fine, but we need to resolve these questions properly. Because it concerns a crat, a position considered so above reproach that our page on crats doesn't even say what to do about a bad one. If we need a case for that, we should have a case. But it is untenable for Nihonjoe to go back to cratting RFAs while there isn't an established version of events about what they are supposed to have done and how bad it was really. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not kidding about a need to determine whether Nihonjoe still retains the trust of the community to continue to act as a bureaucrat. I thought we were going to have an on-wiki discussion because the cat was out of the bag. But if we feel that it could be worse, it is very good that arbcom looks into it instead. But we need an arb to come here and say arbcom is looking into it. What we don't need is an arbcrat being the one to close the discussion referring to completely irrelevant matters, giving last say to people who added nothing but abuse people raising concerns. I don't usually get deep into conflicts between regulars because Wikipedia works just fine with or without the input of a single editor such as me. But we've lost perspective indeed if we fail to consider the optics of extremely long-time admins shutting down discussion when concerns are raised about a top-ranking member of the community, and not even pretending to be nice about it. I did not say Nihonjoe should not be an admin or a crat. I said we need to determine where the community is. What's Nihonjoe going to say in the cratchat if an RFA is started tomorrow and it comes out during the RFA that the candidate had once created a undisclosed COI article and that takes it to the discretionary zone? Smaller issues have been known to become central in RFAs. Everything does not become fine just by pretending it never happened. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not an arb, but I sent the private evidence in question to them, and they replied that they are looking into it. Sagflaps (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was acting in my individual capacity as an admin, with neither 'crat nor Arb affecting my decision. Since yall want to keep going at it, I have re-opened the above discussion. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I apologise unreservedly. I did disagree with the timing and rationale of the close, and with the closer being an arb and a crat at that particular juncture. My concern with the latter was wholly about appearances; I do not and have never doubted your integrity. I regret everything else that I said, and for things I did need to say, I regret the manner in which I said it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As the first person who tried to close this, it's unclear to me what the folks who want to keep this going would like to see happen. If you want Nihonjoe to be desysopped, file a case request with arbcom. If you want to get them decratized, I'm not sure what the process is for that, but filing an arbcom case is probably the place to start. If you want them investigated as a sock, file an SPI. If you think some type of community sanction should be enacted, propose it here. Short of one of those things, continued angst over past actions doesn't seem useful. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Even though I have my opinions on this matter, there is absolutely nothing of positive value that can be accomplished with continuing to have this thread open. Anytime we start talking about issues of trust when it comes to administrator or bureaucrat roles, then by explicit process, that is something which needs to be handled through WP:RFARB. It becomes even more so when you add to that the discussion of conflict of interest, where there is an attendant and increasing risk of outing personal information. As I said previously: I feel only the Arbitration Committee has the capacity to deal with private evidence in this manner, particularly if it is potentially revealing of personal information as Nihonjoe says. By continuing to keep this thread open, we are indeed creating a venue through which actual harassment can occur, which grows the size and scope of the case and makes everybody's Wiki-lives that much more difficult. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about a closing statement? Like a real one, not one that says everybody shut up. One that focuses on the behavior of the reported editor, not on the behavior of the editors discussing it. One that summarizes what happened, what the consensus is, and hey how about a warning not to do it again?

Not for nothing guys but why is it there is no problem processing COIs for non-legend-status players but when it's a functionary it's like "he finally admitted it, what more do you people want?!"

Neither of the closes were like normal closes with normal closing statements. Is that too much to ask?

And is it too much to ask for one of the dozen arbs to speak on behalf of arbcom and let us know if they're going to do anything or not? Am I the only person who wants to know if arbcom received private evidence of this before or after the off wiki blog post made it public?

And maybe one of the advanced perm holders can do something about the ridiculous personal attack I removed?

thanks. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion: WP:COI doesn't strictly forbid a lot of behavior that people sometimes seem to expect being forbidden. WP:PAID does, but it's very narrow in scope. There is no "COI policy" and Nihonjoe is not a "functionary". WP:ADMINCOND exists but there is no formal higher standard for bureaucrats beyond this. And as currently the amount of actual private evidence involved and necessary to determine if there have been policy violations appears to be close to zero, or zero, I personally see no need for ArbCom to do anything at the moment – not even to provide a definitive official statement about whether the committee is going to do anything or not. This is a community discussion to me unless WP:COI becomes policy and gains strict prohibitions that it currently lacks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Close The primary section has been re-opened for the 3rd time. If you want ArbCom to do something, there is a forum to request that. While this thread has arguably outlived its usefulness, we definitely do not need a third section for an outcome that AN cannot provide. Star Mississippi 17:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  I move that ArbCom formally sentence Nihonjoe to 25 wacks with a wet trout. Or, if ArbCom is feeling bold, five squishes with a whale. Sagflaps (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has gone one well past its usefulness and just turned into a platform for users to snipe at each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Nihonjoe admonished and reminded

Administrator and bureaucrat Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) is admonished for failing to abide by community guidelines on conflict-of-interest editing over an extended period. They are reminded of the high level of trust placed on bureaucrats and an expectation to lead by example.

• Support as proposer, in light of the fact that admins and arbitrators have shown no interest to take any further action, and community-at-large has similarly been apathetic, which leads me to believe that not enough people care; even if they do, we get what we deserve. Further, we do not have anything that codifies a higher level of expectation from bureaucrats, nor do we have established procedures for evaluation of bureaucrat conduct, separate from adminship. And this case does not rise to the level of desysopping, even though there were WP:ADMINCOND shortcomings. I continue to believe that we need something official to bring the matter to a close, this can be it, even if it fails. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I should point out that my attempted close (i.e. "TROUT") was essentially this. RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose & Close - This has gone on well past its useful point. Nihonjoe has already apologized, formal admonishment at this point is just trying to get a pound of flesh. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, that's not a community sanction. He has apologized. Take it to ArbComm if you feel you have a case. Otherwise this is just a ridiculous waste of community time and energy. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this thread has not become more useful since I first observed that it had outlived its usefulness. It was time to move on then, and that hasn't changed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Since at the end of the day, this is just a formal reminder to not do it again, and has no real consequences unless he were to COI edit in the future without disclosure. Sagflaps (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Close and maybe trout the people who keep demanding this be reopened. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. In my view, it's at least as important, if not more so, for him to be officially reminded of the need to engage with ordinary editors in response to concerns (and for both Sagflaps and Kashmiri to be endorsed in their attempts to raise the issue collegially). It seems evident that no one has raised the issue of desysopping because no one—including me—believes his conduct has been so egregious as to merit desysopping. But that's a red herring, as is hypothetical de-cratting. A range of sub-par conduct exists for which admins are censured in lesser ways (above trouting), and these include non-responsiveness to concerns. For which we don't need ArbCom, but we do need to know that ArbCom takes issues seriously even when the editor in question is also a bureaucrat. Minimizing concerns about conflict of interest and ADMINCOND and countenancing personal attacks are highly concerning. Even Uncle G's carefully considered and laid out opinion has not received any response. But the posts here by arbitrators and other senior members of the admin corps make it clear that this is the only resolution I can hope for that places on the official record that Nihonjoe's behavior has been below the expected standard. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - basically, this proposal could have been the closing statement for the above discussion. Levivich (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I appreciate that Nihonjoe has apologized. What I don't appreciate is that it took an obnoxious WP:AN thread for them to acknowledge error, and I'm concerned by the continuing phenomenon of defending a user by engaging in personal attacks against other users. Just in this thread we have HandThatFeeds saying users are out for a "pound of flesh." That's a personal attack, and over a proposal to admonish. Admonishments mean nothing! It's the community putting on record that Nihonjoe's behavior fell below what was expected of them, and that community expects them to do better! They agree! It's the most anodyne possible outcome short of doing nothing, and it's still too much somehow. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Admonishments mean nothing!

  Exactly my point. It's performative and just to make the proposers feel good about smacking someone on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, hence my "pound of flesh" comment. This accomplishes nothing except assuaging some egos. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @HandThatFeeds I admit I haven't read Merchant of Venice in a while, but I recall Antonio was in literal danger of his life. The degree to which you're worked up about a possible admonishment seems all out of proportion to what's being discussed. The best thing for Nihonjoe would be rhetorical de-escalation. This could have been closed a day ago if people didn't keep side-tracking the discussion, making personal attacks, or suggesting that this should go to Arbcom instead. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again with the comment about personal attacks. Criticizing people for dragging this out for no gain is not a personal attack. If you believe that I've committed such a violation, file it. Otherwise I'd ask you not to make such an accusation again.

  The thing I'm "worked up" about is precisely people side-tracking this discussion by dragging it out, including this admonishment request. It should've been closed with Nihonjoe's apology & promise not to violate COI earlier, but people just want to formalize it for formality's sake.

  Unless you plan on filing a complaint against me, I'm done with this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I asked The Hand That Feeds You to strike what I felt were personal attacks and they declined. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a proportionate response to the issue given the (late) apology (and one that will lay the groundwork for future actions, in the hopefully unlikely event that there are further or ongoing issues). Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• This has gone on long enough that it is no longer useful, and is almost bordering on running an editor off. This proposal doesn't accomplish anything that hasn't already been done and said. Not only are we beating a dead horse, but the horse is nothing more than a puddle of goo, and we are still beating it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure it won't reoccur, but recidivism should bring with it consequences which will be harder to establish without a preexisting record. Likewise its been pointed out that an admonishment is really nothing on its own, and it's hard to see how an ordinary, particularly a new, editor would have gotten away with much less. ——Serial 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support (Non-admin) accountability is important and this behaviour falls far below community expectations of admins and bureaucrats. An admonishment and formal reminder of these expectations is proportionate and prudent. Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A years old incident involving a lapse of judgement for which Nihonjoe has apologized is being blown way out of proportion. It is inconceivable that they would engage in similar behavior going forward, especially given the response here. This is starting to take on the appearance of the proverbial mob with pitchforks and torches. Enough. It's time to close this, definitively. If anyone wants to pursue this further, WP:ARBCOM is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Struck a line that another editor found objectionable. I stand by the oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Storm in a Teacup kinda rhymes with Shave and a Haircut ... Two Bits. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Yngvadottir et al. As a bare minimum. The COI editing may or may not be historical; but the prevarication & dissembling when called on it, is not; and falls far short of the standards to which we should hold bureaucrats. Rotary Engine ^talk 16:17, 26 February 2024 (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.

So, who were the harassers?

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.

---

Just wondering, do we know specifically which people were involved in the WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT of Nihonjoe off-wiki? And do any of them have accounts on-wiki that should absolutely have some sort of consequences for their actions? I don't really care about the ones that only exist over there, because we already know they're sad people who seem to spend all of their time obsessing over Wikipedia (also, many of whom are already global-banned here anyways).

But I have questions in addition, such as, why did Sagflaps suddenly ask about COI for an article Nihonjoe hadn't meaningfully edited outside of a tag removal in 6 years? What prompted that? Something to do with said off-wiki outing and digging to try and find something, anything, to accuse Nihonjoe of?

Just wondering if we're, yet again, going to bury under the rug the frequent and constant harassment of editors' personal lives. Probably because many of those involved in the harassment over there are admins here and actively work to prevent any sort of consequences. Silverseren^C 00:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The answer, as usual, is "it depends". If someone is not blocked on-wiki and starts outing and/or harassing other editor(s), we should (and often do) block them for it. Whether this block takes place as a normal admin action or as an ArbCom action (or something in between) largely depends on if the connection between on- and off-wiki accounts is public or private. On the other hand, if User A is already indeffed here (or has no account), there really isn't anything we can do if User B sees the off-wiki comment and then asks about it on-wiki (assuming they don't break the outing rules themselves in doing so). Primefac (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

we don't know. anyone can submit blog posts. ltbdl (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the blog in question. I did read it however, and figured I might as well suggest that he declare the COI to quash any future concerns over it. Sagflaps (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (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.

How should we address OUTING, going forward?

• WP:AVOIDOUTING

So WP:AVOIDOUTING is a section of WP:COI. And in reading everything above, unless I missed it, I'm not seeing that this was followed at all in the recent situation.

Per WP:COI - "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to CheckUser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person."

So, someone saying that someone is being non-responsive to a public question - and thus of being outed? Wow. That's a really bad idea to be placing people in that position.

What's to stop someone from randomly asking anyone whether they have a COI about some article they've edited? Doesn't the act of asking create a question of outing?

That some external website did the initial outing is no excuse. We at Wikipedia do not follow the lead of some external website for our best practices.

Reading over the policy pages, it seems to me that none of this should be being discussed here on WP:AN. And instead should have happened in private communication with checkusers (which could include arbcom).

So my question is this:

Where do we go from here?

What can we do to stop this type of situation happening in the future?

I am dead serious - should blocks have been handed out once the outing started? If it turned out that Nihonjoe had a COI, that can be handled. I mean seriously, on Wikipedia, things like copyright infringement edits get handled, so cleaning up COI in an article is presumably pretty easy by comparison.

But outing people?

So, everyone here is part of the Wikipedia community. What do you think should happen in the future? - jc37 06:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's been following this thread but who hadn't (previously) participated in it, I have to say that it made me uncomfortable that this was being discussed on-wiki at all - especially the connection to an external site which can be easily Googled up. I was thinking of emailing Oversight due to the (in my opinion) veiled link to offwiki outing, but I decided against it - for one reason, as I thought there would be Oversighters already aware of this thread, who would have suppressed anything if they thought it was needed. In my opinion, this should have been dealt with privately (by email to ArbCom) from the beginning. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That line made me uncomfortable as well. It exists on a spectrum between naming the website (which would have been clear outing) and providing no information about how the info was recently brought to the community's attention (which would have been more alright). Part of what this incident has revealed is that different editors have different views about where to draw the line along that spectrum, with the practical effect that we end up at the intersection point between the editor with the narrowest view of outing and the oversighter with the broadest view of what's oversightable. Given that oversighters are (understandably) cautious about using their tools in borderline cases, it seems that that intersection point is perhaps less protective against outing than community consensus might wish. Sdkb ^talk 08:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The reality is there's symbiosis between Wikipedia and certain WP:BADSITES, to the point where many long-time editors, admins and arbitrators are active at those sites, and what is discussed can be quite influential on what happens on Wikipedia (or, to Wikipedians). That may even be a good thing. However, linking or invoking that stuff on-wiki just creates drama and is unlikely to get traction, especially if it's "just" from editors. The shadow governing needs to stay in the shadows. Perhaps the community could revisit WP:BADSITES and see if it has the stomach to prohibit linking-to (or invoking) outing material? Bon courage (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that line was an obvious attempt to comply with WP:HARASSMENT by not actually posting the information or linking to it on-wiki, I just think it fell short by giving hints on where to find it. I don't think that was maliciously done. Many of our policies have shades of grey, and discussing undisclosed COI without directly posting/linking the private information is one of them. It might be prudent to add a statement to WP:OUTING saying that giving hints on where to find doxxed information isn't allowed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The outing question is central to my concerns, and comments to just move on (and one failed attempt to close the discussion that got edit conflicted, so I didn't close and commented instead) even if I haven't said as much. People here have to understand this risk, but they just don't seem to give a damn if an editor keeps getting outed. It isn't our best moment, and the several failed closes are proof of that. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, ditto. My vote to close and trout those reopening was not because I don't consider this a serious breach of the community's trust, but because the thread itself seems to be creating damage in ways that are not desirable for an issue that should have been handled privately from the outset. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Just so we understand the risk... We're all going to be outed within the coming years, our semi-anonymity is rather easily outed by machine learning systems (Google for example already knows who you are both on and off wiki unless you're from an obscure market). Outing is inevitable, in the long run none of us will avoid it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was outed less than a year after I started editing in 2005. Someone posted my home address along with something about visiting hours on my talk page. I admittedly did not try particularly hard to hide my identity. I am not as high-profile as a number of editors, but I think we need to do something to protect editors who take on the hard jobs from harassment and worse. Donald Albury 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  We do a ton to protect all editors... But at the end of the day if we have to be honest: we can not reasonably expect to protect our users from doxing in the long term. At the end of the day the way we write is as unique as a fingerprint and we will all be outed, end of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The balance between outing and investigating COI issues is always problematic. I haven't looked at the "other" website nor at the name mentioned there, but on the other hand it isn't hard to find (Redacted) (and one wonders how nihonjoe found the draft 3 minutes after creation in the first place[23]). (Redacted)

Note how Nihonjoe also used their admin tools here and here, which may or may not be a COI use of the tools (directly with the person, the Mormon/BYU angle of COI may perhaps be too tenuous to be objectionable here and with other articles). Fram (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What the hell Fram. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

He uses his real first name, he uses his wikipedia handle elsewhere to connect his full name to it, he edits multiple pages he is very closely connected with (more than was initially raised), and he uses admin tools on another page which seems likely to be a COI page as well. Why are you still protecting them? They should be stripped of their rights instead. Fram (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to get yourself blocked again? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

One practice I find somewhat inexplicable is the one where nobody is allowed to say the name of the BADSITE. People are allowed to read the BADSITE, they are allowed to bring stuff up here that was mentioned on the BADSITE, and they're even allowed to go to the BADSITE themselves and post there about stuff here -- and information from the BADSITE is allowed to be used in our decisionmaking processes -- but we draw the line at forbidding people to mention its name (despite it being notable enough for us to have an article about it, in fact, the only currently-active web forum in Category:Critics of Wikipedia)? Incidentally, this Voldemort procedure is the only thing that doesn't actually affect the situation, and simply makes it imposible for non-power-users to participate in the discussion. jp×g🗯️ 13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

But, do we? Is an arb going to block someone for mentioning Wikipediocracy, knowing that it's been mentioned multiple times on WT:ARBN, for example? Or will an admin block on this page for mentioning Wikipediocracy, even though it's been mentioned loads of times on the usual notice boards? I mean, if people want Wikipediocracy to be unmentionable, actions speak louder than words. But it would presumably have to codify all the other aspects of Wikipediocracy you touch on—intersite participation, for example. Wasn't that recently tried, whereof the committee emerged covered in less than their usual glory? Man, it's a tricky one. ——Serial 13:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The very good reason not to mention it was the same as why OP should have shared less. It's the same reason why arbcom should have so been on top of this that as soon as a concern was raised onwiki, they were able to shut it down with "we're looking, we'll post our findings; meantime, no one mention this on wiki again", or maybe I'm just too stupid, but how about do that preemptively when half of you would have found the offwiki evidence all your own faster than most everyone else and knew full well it was only a matter of time? Instead, you go, after days of being asked, "there's actually nothing new to investigate, so we aren't doing anything; btw COI isn't even a policy, so who cares?" Well, it looks like there was a need to investigate. And if only arbcom had handled this sensibly, we would not have more things coming out publicly that should have all been discovered and discussed privately. In one of the most valuable human undertakings ever, with more than 20 years of experience, we can't find a balance between protecting the encyclopedia and protecting an individual's privacy? It has to be a choice between sweeping everything under the rug and doxxing someone who's contributed more than most? Because, why? Because arbcom has to appear on high and aloof and say as little as possible for whatever reason that's more important than maintaining trust and protecting privacy, I guess. What a let down! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. What the hell Primefac. El_C 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is also my primary concern. As I understand it -- and I don't know if this is true -- but the COI editing was reported privately to arbcom before the off-wiki blog post that exposed it, and the blog post was written in part because arbcom didn't do anything. If this is true, this is a problem.

As to JPxG's point above, I don't think the issue is so much that we aren't allowed to say the name of the site, but that people choose not to name it, in order to not bring attention to it.

I don't think the COI/outing concern Jc brings up is that major of a concern. For me, it's pretty basic that you do not edit the article about your employer, just like you do not edit the article about yourself, just like you do not edit the article about your friends, etc. If you choose to edit COI subjects like that anyway, then you must disclose it. (And it doesn't matter if the edits are good edits or vandalism. Improving an article you have a COI with is still very bad, and that's the reason there are COI rules.) People violate this rule all the time. Outing is essentially required to police COI editing.

Personally, I'd much rather any such outing be done in private, by email arbcom@ or paid@. However, if those reports are being made and sat on, then that's a problem, and a problem that begets off-wiki outing.

I'm still waiting to hear some official word from Arbcom about this. (And I'm hoping the rest of the committee doesn't share the views expressed by PF and TBF in this thread.) Levivich (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Outing is essentially required to police COI editing." - No.

Most ways that an editor can edit Wikipedia are reversible. And what we do to sanction an editor who edits inappropriately is to remove their editing access. Outing is not what we do here. - jc37 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich We learned about this the same way the community did, we weren’t contacted in advance. No comment on anything else here (for now). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this.

I'm much more sympathetic to Rhodo's point above that off-wiki blog posts is no way to police COI on Wikipedia. The first port of call for any Wikipedia editor who wanted to raise this should have been to email Arbcom (which I thought was done, based on comments at said off-wiki site).

I'm going to ask an unpopular question: why is the editor who runs that site not blocked on Wikipedia? If I know their username so does everyone else. That person should be emailing their concerns to Arbcom rather than making blog posts about it.

It's tough to resolve a situation where people on both sides are in the wrong. (Though sweeping it under the rug is no solution.) Levivich (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So many reasons, but I'll start with 1) we don't sanction users for off-wiki activities and 2) silencing one's critics by force is antithetical to everything we do here. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

1) EEML, gamergate would probably like a word. 2) FRAMGATE. ——Serial 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that clear (and as far as I can tell so far unacknowledged) COI editing was going on at least until August 2023[24]. Fram (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing. Adding someone's book isn't exactly violating WP:COIU, in that it is an unambiguously uncontroversial edit. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is if you were to be e.g. (Redacted). It's not just "adding someone's book", it's (Redacted). Oh, haven't they disclosed that yet, despite their "apology" and the forced COI declarations they already made? And oh, isn't ArbCom already aware of this after all of this? Oopsies... Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You really do not know when to stop. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my above comment, editors with a COI are allowed to make uncontroversial edits to pages with which they have a COI. Discouraged, yes, but not prohibited. In the example above, a book is being added to an author's list of publications, and nothing more, which is why I said that it appeared to be an unambiguously uncontroversial edit per the guideline. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Very few things on Wikipedia are 'prohibited'. But doing things you're not meant to do, repeatedly, tends to draw the disapproval of the community leading in the end to sanctions. Adding a book which is (say), your own, your friend's, or which stands to earn you money from sales, is a straight-up COI problem edit. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not discouraged... "strongly discouraged." Also not seeing how a promotional edit could be uncontroversial, unambiguously or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing"? Earlier in this conversation you said I'd just find something else to complain about. Well, I found it. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've said it before but I think conflict of interest is often poorly understood on Wikipedia. Everybody has latent COIs (most obviously, in relation to descriptions of themselves). The more you do in life, especially if you do notable things, the more COIs you accumulate. It's not a bad thing. There is only an issue on Wikipedia where articles exist on topics for which one has a.COI, and one starts editing those topics. Edits made with a COI to the topic and tainted by that COI and Wikipedia frowns on that, most especially for financial COIs (and note being an employee of a company and editing about that company on work time is WP:PAID editing). Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that just because you (1) have a COI and (2) edit at the same time ("editing with a COI"), isn't the same thing as (3) violating the COI guideline ("COI editing"). But this instance -- what Joe did -- is violating the COI guideline. Specifically, failing to disclose the COI whiling editing about the thing he had a COI with, and repeatedly denying it before finally admitting and apologizing to it. So this isn't a question of "editing with a COI" v. "COI editing". Nobody should at this point be confused about whether guidelines were followed or not. The answer is not. Now you could argue that it's just a guideline as an arb argues above. But shit, adding a source to a Wikipedia article is a violation of a guideline if you have an undisclosed COI with the source or the Wikipedia article. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

....except if you are a bureacrat, except under watch of this particular iteration of the committee, whose members have no stands other than whatever they happen to find when they hurriedly type WP:[best guess]. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And, in many instances "it's just a guideline" is the mating call of the problem editor (who hasn't heard that about WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE etc?). Editors that keep on refusing to do what the community guides them to do are a problem the community eventually has to deal with. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And I'd say the COI guideline isn't "poorly understood" on Wikipedia, it's poorly followed. It's amazing to me how many editors, particularly veteran admins, are shrugging at long term undisclosed COI editing here (not directed at you BC, that's a general comment). It's opening my eyes to just how many veterans apparently think editing about your employers/family/friends/whoever is no big deal. Especially, apparently, if you're making good edits. Although since so many thought that "paid advising" shouldn't be prohibited, I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still surprised.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who is not using Wikipedia to try to make money or improve their career, reputation, etc. Of course that's not true, 99% of editors are probably complying with the guideline just fine, but I naively expect advanced rights holders to be adhere to policies and guidelines more strictly than average, rather than less. I've been here long enough now that I really should have disabused myself of that notion long ago. Alas. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's not clear that "paid editing" includes any COI editing involving a financial relationship with the subject. It literally says at WP:PAY An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.... JoelleJay (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence defines a broad category ("having a financial COI") of which "being paid to edit" is a proper subset; this is made clear by the sentence immediately following the two that you quoted: Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI. If I edit the article about my employer tomorrow, I will have a COI, but I will not be a paid editor, unless my employer instructs me to make such an edit in the interim. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand the distinction, but the section is titled "paid editing" which suggests "editing pages about your employer" and "being paid to edit by your employer" fall under "financial COI" and that this broader category is synonymous with "paid editing". JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you (maybe?) that the section WP:PAY is poorly written in that its title is X but its first paragraph is about a larger category, and it doesn't address X specifically until the second paragraph. I have attempted a simple rearrangement of text to remedy this situation. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think that it's clear that we need a better way to report and investigate COIs whose investigation necessarily involves discussing potentially personal information. Sending them to ArbCom is a problem for a variety of reasons - ArbCom is already overworked; it is also intended as a court of last resort, which means that sending something there limits appeal options. Restricting too many things to ArbCom from the moment they arise also risks giving the opinions and interpretations of arbitrators too much weight. I think that all our arbs are good, but the fact that most things go through multiple layers of process before ending up there is an important balance that retains community governance; if too many categories of things are sent straight to arbs then there is a risk that they could become unduly affected by just a few views, even if it's not intentional. And while privacy is important enough to restrict this from being discussed publicly, I don't think that most COI discussions are so private that they need to be restricted straight to ArbCom; for some things, there is a middle ground between "discuss things publicly, outing the person in question to everyone" and "immediately redact them to the absolute highest level." Of course I'm aware that some things would need to be sent straight to ArbCom for legal / OFFICE reasons, but that doesn't cover everything. That said I'm not perfectly happy with any of the other obvious alternatives that come to mind (private courts of admins or CUs or the like aren't something we want to expand either, for a variety of reasons.) Maybe we need a jury system with volunteer jurors who are sworn to secrecy; all you have to do is be a reasonably experienced editor in good standing, agree to that secrecy, never violate it, and put your name forward as available in order to participate. This would probably require some technical support, but it would give us a pool of people who can investigate, discuss, and build consensus on semi-sensitive things without the detrimental effects of sending them straight to the same closed court every time, and would allow for an initial round of investigations before ArbCom. Obvious admins would close discussions, and since the whole point of this is to offer a stop before going to ArbCom, a route of appeal to there would be preserved. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • In my understanding there is a legal angle here, in that people handling personal information need to have signed an agreement with the WMF. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I would hope that many discussions fall below the level that require that (as I said, there are clearly some things that require going straight to ArbCom.) But if it really covers all possible personal information, then we could have anyone who wants to be a juror sign that. I feel that cramming basically all serious investigations with the potential for WP:OUTING (and anything else that requires secrecy) through the same court with, functionally, nobody to appeal to is not scalable in the long term and is a recipe for disaster. It isn't what ArbCom was originally created for; and when we can avoid it, we should try to avoid situations where the same small group of people is the sole judge, jury, and executioner for entire categories of disputes, with no way for anyone else to even review their decision-making. Having a dedicated class of jurors who can review at least some types of private cases would allow ArbCom to preserve its role as the final court of appeals while ensuring that most cases still have enough eyes on them. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
      • This issue about COI v OUTing has never been a problem, before. It's a problem that's been conjured up now to excuse not having done the usual reasonable things that are done, no problem, in literally every other case, ever. It's so simple, it boggles the mind. Someone finds out someone's been doing COI editing but involves private evidence, they just say "I found this editor is breaking COI guidelines (private evidence sent to arbcom or this functionary)". The one who received the evidence handles it privately, which is again, so simple. If you determine it's minor, you tell them not to do it again without disclosing COI, if it's major, you seek sanctions. You make public which articles are affected. Everyone who's interested checks the articles for NPOV issues. Done. Of course, that would have required in this case for the party with the evidence and the authority, to actually want to do what's required, rather than seek excuses to protect a bureaucrat. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
        • That last part seems very confused, given that the people with the off-wiki stuff in hand who brought this up at AFD and on this noticeboard are Sagflaps and Kashmiri, who most definitely did not seek excuses to protect a bureaucrat. Nor did they privately take their evidence to the Arbitration Committee as you would have had them do. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Uncle G, yes they did. Sagflaps said the very day this thread was opened that private evidence had been sent to arbcom, no one has challenged that. Regardless, Moneytrees has now said that they took the offwiki evidence to arbcom soon after it was published, which was days before editors started posting to Nihon's talk. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
            • That doesn't help to make what you said any less confused. How is Sagflaps/Kashmiri posting the evidence publicly here and at AFD in line with what you said about sending evidence privately? It seems to be quite counter to it. How is Sagflaps/Kashmiri posting the evidence publicly here and at AFD "the party with the evidence" "seek[ing] excuses to protect a bureaucrat"? I'm fairly sure that that's the direct opposite of what they are seeking. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
              • Uncle G, the party with evidence and authority is arbcom. Since the very beginning, I have only asked one thing, that arbcom take over the case and close public discussion, so COI issues can be dealt with privately and there is no chance of outing happening in public. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've always been of the opinion that the best preventative medicine for outing relating to WP is to conceal nothing about one's own identity. Unfortunately, the Cult of Anonymity here is so pervasive that it seems universal and with the enhanced powers given to San Francisco to smoke any WP volunteer they want to smoke under the ill-considered Universal Code of Conduct, so-called Outing has become the third rail here. There are two problems in this specific instance: one is that the entire volition for the COI accusation came from off-wiki with a blog post like a bolt from a sky — it wasn't, in this case, a matter of a Wikipedian seeing a problem from within and trying to address the issue internally through prescribed channels, it was a case made by an individual seeking to cast WP in a negative public light. And secondly, it was an accusation of borderline or inappropriate COI editing made against a bureaucrat, not an ordinary administrator. Teh Drahmaz erupt!

Of course, the most Wikipedia thing ever happened: instead of addressing the blog and its accusations head on — oh, dear, that would be outing! — or instead of Arbcom acting proactively and immediately about the matter — why, there's no precedent for that! — a perfectly good article was hauled to the abattoir and people started to either stuff fingers in their ears and hum or start the sanctimonious derby about how nasty, nasty, nasty BADSITE is and how internet anonymity is a fundamental human right. Neither of which are true, but believe what you want to believe.

The fix would have been for the Bureaucrat in question to mea culpa quickly, resign the most advanced hat, and move along with life. But that's not what happened and so we are all wasting our time chattering. Including me. Now, time to write some content. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR //// Carrite (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anonymity can be important for certain topics – if you're editing about organized crime or dodgy nation states, for example, because it's possible exception might be taken to individuals thought to be bringing the wrong things to light. But often privacy is not necessary and is simply fetishised on Wikipedia (and this has roots in digital communities of all types). This enables a lot of crap/COI content. I don't know how to address this tension between content quality and privacy. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that the best preventative medicine for outing relating to WP is to conceal nothing about one's own identity. That's really easy to say for a white man living in the US, which is part of the privilege that you and I both enjoy. It's not as easy for others. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not even necessarily completely safe for people in first-world nations. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, part of the privilege of being an American is having the protection of very strong freedom of speech laws. Even Europeans don't have these protections. It's part of what makes my country exceptional. ;-) Levivich (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Even editors in the US are not necessarily completely safe. It's possible that things like the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions could be brought to bear against an editor who adds something sufficiently detailed. And exposure can risk life-changing consequences even if they're not legal in nature - I recall that during Gamergate (harassment campaign) there were some efforts to direct the campaign against certain editors here, say. They didn't really go anywhere for the most part, but it's a risk. Banned editors have sometimes gone to partisan press outlets and named specific other editors there, too; if those reached the point of discussing real names it could get nasty. --Aquillion (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Regarding ...having the protection of very strong freedom of speech laws, I'm not sure Julian Assange would agree with you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

True. The other issue is that Wikipedia is incredibly poorly designed from the perspective of anonymity/privacy. Every single action is permanently recorded, and there are no built-in controls to limit or even caution people regarding disclosures. Some information does end up hidden from casual-editors, but it is still stored permanently in a database that nation-state actors could gain access to if they so chose. Furthermore even without that level of concern, such information is often available from mirrors and archive services. It's not limited to just on-wiki stuff either, material from the arbcom mailing list has leaked before. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom time?

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.

---

Since the opening of this noticeboard section on 22 February by Kashmiri, the main section has been closed four times: by admin and arb Primefac ([25]), by admin Ganesha811 ([26]), by admin RoySmith ([27]), and by non-admin JayBeeEll (26 February). Despite the evaluation in the most recent close that the earlier closers were correct in reading the discussion as having reached no consensus ... for any sanctions more serious than an expression of concern about their editing, and the evaluation of subsequent proposals as a weak consensus that Nihonjoe's behavior should be officially admonished, that closure states that: Since Nihonjoe has already apologized, it is impossible to see any further point in continuing this discussion. Whether that was a supervote (and whether all closes including that one wrongly ignored the distinct issue of criticism of Nihonjoe's responsiveness, by me and others) has been overtaken by subsequent events. Active discussion has continued below the close. Other instances of editing by Nihonjoe that some editors regard as conflict of interest editing have been adduced, some relatively recent. There is disagreement—and a suggestion that a new reporting procedure should be instituted—about best practices in reporting suspected COI. There have been uncivil and ABF posts. There has been extensive participation by at least one arb, Primefac, but Moneytrees has stated that the Arbitration Committee was not informed of the off-wiki allegations of COI, so this is, so far as we know, where the issues are being discussed. Now (February 28) Fram, a former admin, has been blocked, also by Primefac (oversight block, following a series of allegations in this thread), had their talk page access revoked and reinstated. It is clear that substantial community disagreement exists; the repeated closure attempts have not worked; OUTING concerns make it desirable for the matter to move to a venue where evidence can be submitted privately; Primefac's conduct in the discussion and in blocking Fram arising from a discussion where they have been an active participant is not above suspicion; some have already stated that private submission of the concerns to ArbCom should have been the route taken in the beginning. I have stated above that this could and should all have been avoided, but my view of how demonstrably differs from that of many other editors; there's an intractable disagreement here. I believe a request for arbitration is in order. Someone who knows how, please make one. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support not because I necessarily think there's a case, but because it is the only path to resolution and eventual closure of this thread before the last remaining editor gets in the last word. Star Mississippi 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Someone who knows how, please make one." Okay, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conflict of interest management. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for Eni.Sukthi.Durres

• Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Link to ANI thread

Appellant was blocked by @Kinu: for WP:CIR and WP:NPA related to their English language skills. Both their language skills and comportment have improved, but is it enough? I share Kinu's hesitance, so I bring it to you. I will copy the latest unblock request and ensuing discussion in separate blocks.

;carried over latest unblock request--

Hello dear Wikiedians. During these times I've had some serious problems that I had to solve so I couldn't speak more about this issue of unblocking, sorry. Ok then, for the question that 331dot (talk · contribs) did to me, I want to tell you that I didn't had anything serious there but however I must admit that it wasn't anything good, but I was misunderstood for what they said to me. For short, I want to say once again that the reason I love Wikipedia is the passion for information, biographical content, their correction, so I promise once again that I will do useful work whenever I can, even in cooperation with fellow editors here.

;carried over unblock discussion

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. For instance, you made a threat of violence. Please, in the context of this threat, please tell us why we should unblock you. Do you think that your English is good enough to understand a conversation? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why when anyone answered one of your questions did you come back with a challenge? Is that the sort of behavior we can expect from you if you are unblocked? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that we don't know from text on a screen whether you are serious or kidding? Any person receiving such a comment would likely be fearful. Is English your main language? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Deepfriedokra}} {{ping|331dot}}

-Style of editing

I have changed my style of editing compared to the one I had before being blocked. My edits will start from simple stats update to helping improve the quality content of the articles I plan on working with.

-Reaction to the threat!

As for the threat. It came at the heat of the moment and it wasn't meant as a threat. I didn't mean it and I have apologized for my mistake. It wasn't polite and it wasn't surely professional.

If I'm granted unbloking, I'll do my very best to help improve this project while cooperating with the fellow editors.

My English has been improving alot since the last time I contributed in the English Wikipedia. I've taken classes outside and my level of knowledge and understanding has gone up. Thank you and greetings. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: @331dot:

Hello. SOrry mates, have you received MY message. I can understand you are busy with other requests but however I mentioned again to be sure you received it, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition I will wait patiently for an answer. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: OK to unblock? Does it need to go to WP:AN as a WP:CBAN?

Link to ANI thread -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I am admittedly somewhat hesitant. The text of the unblock request above and other comments herein do not convince me of the editor's ability to write in English at a level that would be required for an encyclopedia. However, that is not as problematic as the persistent behavioral issues. The extensive block log, which includes sanctions not only for the aforementioned threat but also for this horrendously inappropriate edit summary (RevDeled but still visible to administrators) and for prior harassment (per the logged reason), is problematic. It came at the heat of the moment (as mentioned in the reply above) could be a justification had this happened once, but it does not excuse overall pattern of WP:NPA-violating behavior. With as much objectivity as possible (given that I am both the blocking administrator and the recipient of the aforementioned threat), I personally feel that an unblock is not justified. However, if any other administrator who has commented here and/or at the relevant discussions feels otherwise, I would not consider it wheel-warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: I appreciate your consideration in replying to me regardless of the many conflicts that have occurred here which are the reason of my blocking.

I must say that since I'm insisting all this time to get unlocked, it's because I like working here on the wiki and that I've also understood my mistakes which I've said even before that I didn't had any serious intention but simply I felt offended, you don't know me I don't know you personally. I also readed WP:NPA and I really found myself at section First offenses and isolated incidents where says that sometimes they aren't meant as attacks at all...

Dear admin, I humbly ask you to look positively at me to appreciate my true passion for Wikipedia and once again I tell you that I have changed my behavior even though I didn't gain anything from all that. I'm open for discussions, only tell me what else needs to do to justify the negative things I've done in the past, thanks. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I might well take the request and this discussion to WP:AN as I am also hesitant. If no one unblocks first. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I appreciate that. Greetings. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: Ima formatting for WP:AN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• No to unblocking Based on what I have just read (as I am new to the issue), and seeing the horrendous (revdel) edit summary, I say no to unblock. That behavior is unacceptable. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I can't view the edit summary, but can you explain what it was about? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Corvette ZR1 I would characterize it as a vulgar personal attack containing what I think is a racial slur. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Decline badgering while awaiting response to unblock doesn't bode well for a change in conduct/temperament, which to me is the bigger issue than the language ability. Also, that e/s while eight years ago is horrendous. We don't need that kind of editor here. Star Mississippi 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Replly carried over.

Mate thanks for sending the case to WP:AN. I even saw the first opinions there and sorry for bothering you but I was impressed by someone who called my question to you (about receiving the message or not) a bandering. I'm very sorry, but I thought it was very necessary to ask that question, because in the first instance I was very kind and courteous with its drafting, but also that we know that the previous request was declined for not responding within 1 week, only for this is what I was worried about.. I waited patiently for 4 days but I couldn't stayed without asking 1 simple question so that they don't think I don't give any importance to this, sorry however. I also think that maybe not all admins. are with that same opinion, however I'm here to collaborate. As for that e/s of 2015 who they speak, I think that it belongs to the past now, it even hadn't any serious meaning at the time, it came only at the heat of the moment in an useless debate there. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone there? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am. Now I'll go ping some involved editors. @331dot and Kinu: can you give your opinion on this matter? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like my opinion is pretty clear from the carried-over comments, but for the record I will state oppose unblock. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since my opinion has been solicited I oppose unblocking this user. Their attitude has no place here. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• reply carried over below

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for everything you are doing. I admit I'm really surprised that everyone is against my unblock. I would tell them once again to try to be positive to understand my great desire to work on the wiki, a desire which has even made me forget the bad behavior. If you don't unblock me, I don't know how else to prove it, I can't think of it at the moment. Thank you everyone.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I would tell them once again to try to be positive to understand my great desire to work on the wiki, a desire which has even made me forget the bad behavior. sounds like they'll lose track of their behavior out of a love for the project again which isn't a good sign. Is it viable for them to work on another project for six months to show ability to edit productively? Star Mississippi 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, after some investigation, this appears to be part of the reason for the aforementioned block in 2013. I'll leave it to interested editors to use a translation tool. (Is it a poor attempt at humor? I don't know, but it's certainly not something I'd consider constructive if I found it on my talk page.) It's not my intention to pile on to my previous comments, but while this editor may claim to forget about such transgressions, they do suggest that there is a pattern of not being able to work in a collegial environment. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• reply carried over

@Deepfriedokra: Please carry over this also. In reply to the latest comment added recently in WP:AN, I would say that "My great desire is to work here to show my abilities of expanding information and making useful contributs in several articles, but however if I don't have another choice you can test me in another project to convince you all that I have left behind my bad conduct and I intend to work passionately here in english wiki where I like it most. Thank you one more time for your consideration, greetings everybody. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 10:51 am, Today (UTC−5)

carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: (Non-administrator comment) Based on what they have done in ANI, I think it is better not to unblock them, what is the guarantee that he may behave tomorrow something strange, if unblocked. The best thing we can do is to advice this guy to work on other projects in wikipedia (Ex: Simple English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc.) for some time (minimum one year). I guess they will get a new experience over there and spent some time. Admins may judge their behavior on other projects. If it is found that he has done an established amount of contributions in other projects, then we can go for unblock. --CSMention269 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd edits

Hi, this is about Special:Contributions/2600:8805:918B:9B00:BC3E:4AF2:605A:ED66. I did not warn because I don't know very well what I should do. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed twice at WP:ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Serial suspect changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Reporting, 173.29.27.108 IP

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

Someone please undo all edits by 173.29.27.108. This guy literally destroyed many articles and many of edits are still alive as current version! Mpj77 (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I know, snark snark, but you cannot literally destroy something that is both digital and has an edit history. I randomly checked a half-dozen edits and they don't seem to rise to the level of vandalism being attributed here, and some appear on the surface to be "not bad". Primefac (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

They're currently under a two month block and the edit you're talking about is from December. Nothing to act on here at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Name conflict with other person

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

---

I am trying to create page for Abhilash Pillai. He is screenwriter for 4 movies in Malayalam and Tamil. But the name conflict with this person (Abhilash Pillai).

How can I create page for Screenwriter Abhilash Pillai? Please help.

His movies are Malikappuram (Malikappuram), Night Drive (year 2022) (Night Drive (film)), Cadaver (2022 film) (Cadaver (2022 film)), Pathaam Valavu (Pathaam Valavu) Rajesh P Murali (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Rajesh P Murali, the page can be disambiguated to distinguish the two articles. However, your draft is not quite ready yet (it needs at minimum more reliable sources) so for the moment I would not worry about the article title itself. I would highly encourage you to submit your draft for review through the Articles for Creation process, and I have added a template to your draft to help you out. Before you submit please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2024 (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:24.212.225.184

User:24.212.225.184 Personal attacks after informing editor sourced does not means inclusion and informed editor to discussion in talk page - see personal attack -1, -2, -3, and -4 after giving npa warnings - see -5 and -6 and gave 3rr warning - see -7. Cassiopeia talk 04:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't personally attacked you. I merely disagreed about your ridiculous and contradictory decision making re: putting factual information on an individual fighter page but not putting said factual information on the fight card page. That is contradictory and makes no sense. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You said I am ridiculous and absurd (these are attacks) even I informed you to discuss the disagreement in the article talk page and warned/informed you the potential of 3RR and not to write personal attacks messages. Sourced content is not considered inclusion and also the norm of all event page which is about the event itself and the info have already (repeatedly informed) recorded in the subjects' pages. Cassiopeia talk 04:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I said your DECISION regarding that was ridiculous and absurd. Therefore, I was talking about the DECISION that you made, not you personally. Can you see the difference there? There is clearly a difference. And, for the record, I still strongly disagree with your decision and I think it's ridiculous and contradictory. You removed objective and factual information from the fight card page. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

These are three examples of direct personal attacks on the editor, not the decision, from the provided diffs above.

• You are being ridiculous and absurd right now.
• YOU ARE BEING ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS. YOU NEED TO CHECK YOURSELF.
• YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

Do you understand that behavior like this is not acceptable and a violation of our policies on civility? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I said you should be ashamed of yourself, and that you're absurd, and that you're ridiculous IN REFERENCE TO the contradictory decision that you made, so clearly, I was talking about the decision. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

And that behavior is unacceptable. Let's be very clear -- it's not OK for you to talk to another editor in that manner, regardless if you're referring to them directly (which you unequivocally were) or their decisions. So I'll ask again -- do you understand that your conduct was in violation of our policies or do you not? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I said "Yes" above, but I guess you want me to repeat myself: Yes.

And, again, let's all remember here that this is over the removal of FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE information that I had added to the fight card page, even after adding reliable sources. Having this information on the fight card page improved the overall usefulness and amount of information on that page. So, for the record, I strongly disagree with the decision that was made here, but I haven't made any further attempts to undo the edits on said page. 24.212.225.184 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well then. Based on your response, I'm blocking you from editing indefinitely until you can show that you've read and understood our *required* policies on user conduct. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia nor are you displaying the level of competency required to be allowed to edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

May want to downgrade the duration of the block to a couple weeks/months. It's my understanding that we almost never indefinitely block IPs due to them frequently cycling and being reassigned. A bit of a loophole in this case, but I think that's the standard procedure for IP blocks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ideally it wouldn't take that long, but sure. Adjusted to 1 week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored)

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([28]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([29]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([30]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([31]).

After another three months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced. Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sagflaps: I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith. Marcelus (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't given much information on why the 1RR/0RR was given in the first place, and why those concerns are no longer applicable. Sagflaps (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

this comment should follow the one that it answers. Maybe someone will move the question above it. @Marcelus: Do you feel that the way you initiate discussion is collegial and in compliance with Wikipedia policy? Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You should withdraw this appeal. Or take it to whoever gave you the sanction.

I actually think this is the wrong sanction, and semi-supported your appeal, but now I have grave concerns about your grasp of policy. I am being vague for your benefit but I know you understand at least in part what I am referring to. I am giving you the opportunity to walk back what you just said. Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby if you think that I did something wrong or that I should be sanctioned somehow for something, please speak up or report this to adequate noticeboard. I don't really know what you mean, and those sort of innuendoes do not serve anyone Marcelus (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't innuendo, it was one last attempt to avoid dramah on a board that is getting more traffic than usual.

So be it.

I have an appointment and also need to consult someone about whether some of what I have to say would be outing. But. There is quite a bit to choose from in the past three months, however pending a fuller answer perhaps you would like to use [32] as an example of collegial discussion of a work in progress? Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the description of the revision is quite comprehensive: I removed unnecessary positions from the bibliography and your meta comments. I would ask you to formulate your objections towards me more comprehensively, i.e. write directly what I am doing wrong according to you. Marcelus (talk)

And you discussed your interference and removal of sources from a work in progress where exactly? We call what you are pointing at an "edit summary". You claim above that you initiate discussions in a collegial manner in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The above is just one example, given when I wasn't really available, but it's a manual revert and will do for a start.

Your past three months may not have included in a 3RR complaint but they by no means constitute "trouble-free editing". If you would like to amend that statement and strike the one about initiating discussion, which is the one that made me guffaw, I am willing to drop this for now.

I do have some time today to write up the longer answer I promised, and without getting into the third-party privacy stuff, I can discuss why I have felt a need to move work on Lithuania offline until it is done. There is however a significant issue from the past three months that involves a third party and about which I have offered pertinent private evidence. Why is this not at AE, by the way? Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's rather clear that I don't start a discussion about every change I make. In this case, a comprehensive edit summary seemed to me to be sufficient. I will not continue this discussion because it looks like WP:BLUDGEON. Nor will I respond to innuendos or attempts to intimidate. I encourage you to provide actual evidence, instead of telling about them, it can be on AE.Marcelus (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am either bludgeoning or I am not being forthcoming. Pick one. Btw, you are interrupting the work you asked for.

As for AE, I am actually rather busy and don't plan at this moment to initiate a complaint. I am objecting to this appeal simply because of the jaw-dropping discrepancy between in complicated situations I initiate discussion and your actual editing pattern, as reflected in It's rather clear that I don't start a discussion about every change I make. I agree, btw, you do not by any means start a discussion about every change you make. At all.

My question to you was why this appeal is not at AE. Elinruby (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

All my appeals were here, it's a good place to discuss it. Marcelus (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent an email about the privacy question and offwiki evidence. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: I didn't receive any mail. Marcelus (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would I email you about the privacy of a third party? Elinruby (talk)

You didn't specify to whom you send an email, so I just informed everyone that it wasn't e-mail to me Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

huh. I am not sure why anyone would think that but ok? Elinruby (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. As someone who offered previously to mentor Mercelus, I am not aware of any problems with his editing (as in, nobody complained to me or tried to draw my attention to anything, nor did I see any issues with my occasional intraction with him). The only issue I see is a slight need for an interaction ban betweeen Marcelus and Elinruby, although so far it does not appear serious, nor do I want to imply that either party is at fault here more than the other (on that note, I'd strongly advice both of them to try to avoid one another and to not comment on, or talk to, the other party).

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The user has 1RR, so at this point granting a WP:ROPE 3RR is reasonable. I don't think there's many negative consequences here, since if the user edit wars they will be right back at AN. Sagflaps (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus I have considered you a friend, but come on. You have asked *me* for help with Marcelus' behavior and while I am digging for diffs I'll see if I can find one for than too.

Sagflaps they are always right back at AN, and that is the problem. I was just trying to count the number of times since Ivanvector gave them a final warning on (checks notes) 29 November, which I note he has failed to do mention. On December 3 he accused another editor of "further attempts to obscure the history of Lithuanian collaboration during WWII" over (checks notes) removing vandalism from the lede that was unsupported by the text. This was one of his accusations against Cukrakalnis btw, that the vandalism was unsupported in the text, which Cukrakalnis had not otherwise edited. Currently article has no mention of Ambrazevičius pro-Nazi activities made it seem as though he were responsible for this. This ANI thread never did get closed but went instead to Arbcom and triggered a motion to tighten sourcing requirements. In that ANI he also misleadingly cited the user's final warning at a previous AE for losing his temper as evidence of "improper editing". Yes, he said that there. But there was no finding to this effect and The discussion ended with a "final warning" for Cukrakalnis. It seems that after a short break, C has returned to his practices. certainly makes it seem as though there was. There is a storm and intermittent power and telecommunication outages in my area so I may disappear again, but the privacy concern is resolved and there is more to come, including hounding me on Christmas Day Eve for a source for what I had described as "OR" as in "your OR does not trump their OR". Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Agency in dissolution He has also created an article on the capital of Lithuania entirely devoted to Polish grievances about the treaty that placed it in Lithuania. It has only one Lithuanian source. Briefly, he has no business editing in Lithuania at all and should have been topic banned long ago. His entire editing style is problematic and I will also be linking to demands that I make changes for which he refused to provide a source. Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Recent changes made by Elinruby This is not "trouble-free editing" Elinruby (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ELinruby, as a friend, I really think you should try to disengage here and for everyone's benefit, avoid interacting with Marcelus. And as for the diffless comments above, nothing you even mention pertains to edit warring, which is what is being discussed here. I strongly suggest following the motto: "Live and let live". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look at this dispassionately rather than through the lens of...whatever is clouding your thinking here. As it happens I just addressed that. Cukrakalnis has been driven from the topic area and has felt the need to change his username. (email evidence available) *I* have had to work on revisions offline. You really want to defend deleting a bibliography, Piotrus? He is trying to own the topic which might even be ok if he was doing it justice, but he is not. But sure. Next you'll call me a Lithuanian nationalist. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: if I get another email like the one just now from you I will post it here. Lose the threats bud. Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I did warn him. I am going back to diffs now. Have a good night. Elinruby (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You can post that email here. It was not intended as a threat, just a friendly advice, although written quickly as I am dealing with a crying baby (even now); if anything in it was offensive, let me apologize in advance. Since things seem to be escalating in a way that is not likely to benefit anyone, nor Wikipedia, I will not say anything more about this issue (appeal), or you, except note that WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. Consider me "chased away" from the discussion here, I said what I wanted already (about Marcelus), and I do not want to say anything else about you (I still consider you a wiki friend). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. Just to avoid any miscommunication, crying baby refers to a real baby crying in real life next to me, not to anyone on Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will consider this permission to share it if asked. Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the lack of edit warring? I seem to be the only editor left standing in the topic area and I simply don't, so I am not even sure he should get credit for that. Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -- with the following I think I will have sufficiently backed up what I said above to demonstrate good cause at a minimum not to grant the appeal. If not, or if there are questions, please do ping me.

===Evidence for statements above===

• Final warning Nov 29: By successful appeal, Marcelus' indefinite 0RR restriction in the WP:ARBEE contentious topic area is reduced to 1RR. However:The editors who participated here and declared themselves involved were quite unanimously opposed to reducing this sanction. Although there is consensus among the uninvolved commenters to accept this appeal, the opposing sentiment was echoed by several uninvolved editors. The previous sanction and appeal were discussed just two months ago, and there was also a rather weak consensus to convert the AE block to 0RR at that time, with a minority preference to impose a six-month moratorium on appeals. Had this appeal been considered a continuation of that very recent one, I believe it would have failed. Nonetheless, our mandate here is to consider the consensus of uninvolved editors who participated in this appeal discussion, and as such the appeal succeeds. However, I advise Marcelus that, per the points above and per WP:RECIDIVISM, further violations are likely to result in more severe sanctions; likely a ban from the topic at minimum. It is your responsibility, and only your responsibility, to abide by the restriction. -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)
• AE We could give Cukrakalnis a logged warning that any further inappropriate remarks will lead to sanctions courtesy ping: @Extraordinary Writ and HJ Mitchell:
  • Note that Piotrus pings me into the discussion and mentions a previous occasion where he asked me to help mediate as I mentioned above. And before someone points it out, yes I was on both occasions exasperated and rude to both parties. I now believe that I was wrong to both-sides this. I would not have resolved this case in this way, but the close is not wrong either. Cukrakalnis did fail to many maintain a Spock-like equanimity in the face of personal attacks. I have not gone through the case line by line; it is cited here to show the reason for the warning; it was not editing.
• Arbcom request
• ANI
• Juozas Ambrazevičius edits by Cukrakalnis

===Additionally===

• M insists on using obscure Polish source as reference over more easily verifiable sources in English: Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Removing text that doesn't verify
• Attempts to discuss
  • Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#personal attack removed
  • Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius#Please explain this edit
• M insists there are no differences in the historiography between countries or timeframe, yet there are in fact at least Soviet, Lithuanian nationalist, Israeli, Belarussian, and World War II German narratives. I think there may be a separate Polish narrative as well but I have had trouble sourcing it or verifying Marcelus' source. But for example:
  • short historiography primer
  • See Occupation of the Baltic states#Soviet and Russian historiography for the Soviet version
  • Sorbonne explainer
  • Stanislovas Stasiulis pictured the history of the Holocaust in Lithuania as "three layers and periods." The first, he wrote, involves the relationship between Lithuanians and Jews during the Nazi occupation, and the second followed the Soviet re-occupation. The third period of interest covers the historiography since 1990, he wrote, which has attempted new and open discussions of the defensive (emigré) and ideological (Soviet) reactions to the Holocaust. The Soviet refusal to acknowledge the racialism of the Holocaust helped trigger a defensive cultural response known as double genocide theory, which equated the Holocaust and the Stalinist brutality meted out to Lithuanian by the Soviets. Considered a form of Holocaust trivialization, this paradigm has sometimes been taken as far as portraying Nazi pogroms as retaliation. from Provisional Government of Lithuania (text and reference added there by me)

References

Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)}}

Oppose, because Marcelus' edits on the main and talk pages do not lend credibility to his appeal. For example, the first version of his recently (Jan 28) created article Vilnius Region under Lithuanian administration (1939-1940), he mentioned a Lithuanian "occupation" of the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. Everyone would correctly recognize that something is definitely wrong if someone writes about the "English occupation of London", "French occupation of Paris" or "Ukrainian occupation of Kyiv" because these things don't make sense, so neither does the "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius", but Marcelus still wrote those words. This sort of writing is suspicious and problematic. In addition, in a recent discussion Talk:Żeligowski's Mutiny#Żeligowski launched an offensive to occupy all of Lithuania, Marcelus is doing apologetics and denying that the Polish army units that launched an offensive that occupied the Lithuanian capital Vilnius and then aimed to take over the temporary capital Kaunas had any plans to conquer or occupy all of Lithuania. Overall, Marcelus' editing is definitely not as trouble-free as he would like to claim and so I oppose granting him the appeal.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and +JMJ+, my suggestion: let's focus here on the problem of edit waring, any other objection I suggest you present on AE, I will be happy to answer them there. I see that you together have a big problem with me, so I think it's time to resolve it. And I propose to keep the discussion on the content on the article talk pages.Marcelus (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The way you immediately dismissed the legitimate concerns of other users only shows that your style of communication (which you claim has changed) with other editors leaves a lot to be desired and demonstrates why your 1RR exists. +JMJ+ (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

my Internet is going in and out again and I have to go but I think that the fact that this appeal seriously misrepresents your editing style is relevant to this appeal. You should withdraw it. I tried to talk to Piotrus about this last night. Bottom line he's genuinely too busy to read this entire thread let alone monitor your behaviour. I still think you should be topic banned and will applaud if that ever happens, but all I am asking right here is that your bullying behavior not be further empowered. It is revealing that the discussion immediately went to boomerangs and interaction bans. The problem here is that you feel entitled to hostilely police other editors' work based on beliefs you refuse to substantiate. Or cannot, as above. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and +JMJ+: Ok, I listened to you. I don't agree with your assessment of me, of course, but it saddens me that you see me this way. However, I don't want to bludgeon this discussion into things unrelated to 1RR, that were also largely discussed elsewhere (here for example). I encourage you to create a submission in AE. And now I'm waiting for feedback from other editors and eventual request for comment from them.Marcelus (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

blink. I could swear you just answered my point that you misrepresented your editing style here in this appeal by pointing to an ANI thread where you misrepresented the findings of an AE. And which I quoted extensively above. In which you steadfastly refuse to provide a source. Have you read the other posts in this thread? Please Marcelus, nobody has time for this right now. Are you really trying to be your own Arbcom case? Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, as I said, I'm waiting for the contributions of other editors. I am not comfortable talking to someone as hostile as you are towards me. Marcelus (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly hostile. I keep offering you a way out of this hole you've dug. But there is no question that you have made misleading statements. I had the receipts and since you demanded I show evidence I did so. I even warned you first.

You initiated this and can possibly still withdraw, due to all the other drama going on. I am actually rather sad about the fact that you won't. Elinruby (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby if you do all this only out of concern for me, then you can stop. I really don't need it. Let's wait for the opinions of others. Marcelus (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not enjoying this conversation either, Marcelus, but that's not what I said.

I said that you have made misleading statements here and at ANI, and you should withdraw this appeal if you are not going to address that.

Other features of your editing have also been mentioned, such as unsubstantiated personal attacks, but you should address the above examples of misleading statements because they put in question what you say about facts and sources and why you would revert something in the first place Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: per my reply to your message on my talk page, I really think you need to click the links here and re-examine what you were opining on without fully investigating. Lest this seem to others like beating a dead horse, you just did the very same thing on my talk page about a recently-closed ANI thread that you completely misunderstood. I will refrain from comment on how much confidence this gives me in whether it is in fact Rotary Engine who isn't getting it. Please don't explain that dispute to me, or I will break out my anti-administrivia photon torpedoes. But that comment is why you are getting more than a simple wordless ping here.

Elinruby (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Backlog report at PERM/PCR

There has been a backlog in WP:PERM/PCR for last few backs - 4 or 5 such requests were pending for more than 7 days. None of admins is bothered to see that rather than responding to new request. Can something be done on this? -CSMention269 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Move a draft article into a sandbox

Hi,

I currently have a draft for an article I wrote saved separately but I want to move it into my WikiEDU sandbox so my TA can see it. I tried to copy it over but it wouldn't let me. Here is the link for the draft Draft:Economics of Gold#Supply and Demand and I would like to move it here User:Russellmorden/Https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Economics+of+Gold&create=Create+page

If you could help me with this that would be great!

Thanks,

Russell Russellmorden (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done: User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced additions to a corporate article

Over at the Teleperformance article user Coconutshrimp has been constantly trying to remove well-source additions to the Controversies section. Some admin oversight would be good to try and get a more neutral view on the matter. Defending a corporation blindly surely isn't healthy for Wikipedia in my view. Perhaps these additions can be improved upon but not removed entirely given their relevance to the topic as well as being supported by neutral sources. Gnkgr (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I see at Talk: Teleperformance is you, Gnkgr making evidence free accusations of racism against Coconutshrimp, and Coconutshrimp making evidence free accusations of vandalism against you. That is suboptimal behavior from both of you. So, I am warning the two of you to stop casting aspersions and limit yourself to productive and collaborative discussion about how best to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to agree with User:Cullen328's assessment. I'm inclined to fully protect the page, but I'm hoping everyone chooses to act like adults and discuss sourcing on the talk thread. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Gdavis22 is Promotion-only account

• Gdavis22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sills Cummis & Gross
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 16
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_4#Sills_Cummis_&_Gross

The only activity by User:Gdavis22 has first been arguing Keep at an AFD of an article that was really a directory profile, for Sills, Cummis & Gross, and then submitting two Deletion Review requests to reinstate the deleted article. The problem with the Keep at the AFD was that the user did not declare a conflict of interest. The article was redirected to one of the firm's partners. The first DRV did not state any error with the AFD, and so was AFD round 2, but DRV is not AFD round 2. The second DRV, three weeks later, is vexatious litigation, as well as being an attempt at AFD round 3. I request that the account be either blocked as a promotion-only account, or partially blocked from DRV. A topic-ban will be a good idea, but is only necessary if the account isn't just blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly needs to WP:DISCLOSE, and they seem to have been just bothering editors' talk pages regarding the deletion review for SC&G. Even uninvolved editors. I support a block for now. But keep it open to an unblock if they agree to disclose and not be disruptive, if they want to recreate the article to submit through AfC, etc. TLA^tlak 02:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I blocked for UPE out of the DRV. They're welcome to file an unblock that indicates what else they wish to edit about, but this was ridiculous. Star Mississippi 03:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Sound.wav created despite salting

According to the protection policy, File:Sound.wav is supposed to be empty and salted, and the log for the file confirms that it's protected against creation, but somehow it was created by a user in Commons and now exists here. Or, I guess, auto-links to the Commons file. I'm posting this here even though I guess it's sort of a deletion request because it's in effect bypassing a creation protection here and maybe some action needs to be taken to prevent this in the future, here or in other Files --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's salted only here, not on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really stupid that random stuff on Commons can override en.wp salting, although I guess that's a consequence of the system being extremely weird and bespoke to begin with. At any rate, I've uploaded a dummy file to File:Sound.wav (a 132-byte file consisting of 0.001 seconds of silence), and full-protected that. jp×g🗯️ 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the Commons file should rather be renamed; the Commons policy allows renames of meaningless titles. I'll see how to find a new name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Renamed and requested salting, so the local copy can probably go again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really stupid that random stuff on Commons can override en.wp salting. Could create a Phabricator ticket for this. That'd be the first step to getting it fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The file has since been deleted and salted on Commons, so I think we can safely delete this file now. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done even though I fat-fingered the rationale. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@78.26: Well, if it makes you feel better, my comment did imply that the local file ought to be deleted if the issue was resolved ;^) jp×g🗯️ 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Yeah, that’s right. Clearly an G7. I know precisely what I’m doing at all times. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

R. Indira edits issue

I am observing that User:Indirasociology is continuously adding and removing contents on the page without source or explanation. As this is a COI issue, this user was notified but still ignored to such and keep on doing changes on R. Indira. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 10:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Vanderwaalforces:. --CSM269 (talk | contrib) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and there appear to be another account Indira Ramarao, but looks like Tacyarg already filed a noticeboard thread at COI/N. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Guess there is the place I should have reported earlier. Thanks. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 11:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello! I don't really know how to handle this, but I just realized that something should probably be done about it. I'm pretty sure Arabella A. Daniel is violating copyvio things on page Cleanaway, directly copying from the sources listed. Thanks, _Dial^mayo 15:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm being so unconfident about this, just look at this URL and this diff. Here's the link to Earwig. _Dial^mayo 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dialmayo Yep, all copyvios. Now handled - thanks for the report. For reference Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 is a simple guide on how to deal with copyvios. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's bookmarked now. _Dial^mayo 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep You missed a diff, the 07:02, 5 March 2024‎ edit by Atremari also contains the copyvio. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

done. Nthep (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Involved page protection by yours truly

I semi'd Susan Gerbic for two months, as I believe any administrator would have. I am involved, however, so I'm noting it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you're involved? Reverting nonsense doesn't make you involved. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, where they were one of the named parties. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. There is obviously some off-wiki campaign that needs a swift response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There is obviously some off-wiki campaign that needs a swift response Absolutely. Details of that campaign(s) are available at the FTN discussions here and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• What Reaper said. Not really involved if your edits aren't "editorial", and are instead just maintenance, removal of obvious junk. But no harm in dropping it off here either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Commerce

User @MrOllie , constantly reverts completely scientific, correct, referenced and sourced image and content on commerce for personal reasons.Even though I talked to him several times and explained to him,In response, he says that the added image is not a commercial ship, but a boat! And it has nothing to do with that article. I would be grateful if you check.Thanks Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Kavehkdf1402, you boldly edited the article and MrOllie reverted you. The next step is to discuss the issue on the talk page, not to re-revert or start a discussion here. I see no mention of this issue on Talk:Commerce. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I talked to him on my talk page, but unfortunately he insists on his position.The image is completely related to the subject of article (a commercial ship carrying commercial cargo) and its caption is also sourced and correct. First,he said that this is a boat! And now he says it is decorative.I will be very grateful if you take a look at the edit and tell me what is wrong with it.

According to Wikipedia policies, if an edit has a problem, it is better to fix it in the first place than to delete it immediately! But this user seems to be very interested in reverting.This will definitely discourage new users.

Additionally, most of my edits are reverted by this user only. If there is a problem with edits, why can only this user recognize it?! That's why I'm reporting his behavior here. Thanks Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, my edit wasn't 'boldly' at all ,l just added a perfectly relevant image to the article. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger is correct. Just as MrOllie doesn't automatically decide on whether the image should be added, you don't automatically get to decide either. See WP:BRD (which is what he meant be "bold"). Go to the article talk page, stop the insults, and have a calm rational discussion. If that doesn't result in an agreement, then follow the steps outlined here: WP:Dispute Resolution. If you both are less brusque with each other, it will make it more likely that other people will want to join the discussion. It's time to stop reverting each other on the article, though. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning that the image caption is a copy and paste of the cited source. It seems that the main focus of Kavehkdf1402's edits so far are pasting dictionary definitions into various articles. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please prove that the image caption was copy and paste.

If it was like that, it would be better to correct it instead of saying that this is a boat! Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please prove that the image caption was copy and paste. - Anyone may read what you wrote and notice that there is completely identical wording in the citation. I might've reported it as a copyvio, but I find it borderline due to the length. There were multiple reasons to revert in this case. That it is a decorative picture of a boat and not anything that serves an educational purpose is another one. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently you still call the ship a boat!? Amazing ! Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The two words are synonyms, and that is the one I used, yes. I realize you have some kind of issue with this (as you wrote: You don't even know the difference between a boat and a ship. Dear friend, you don't need to edit all the topics you don't have expertise in. [33]). But choice of synonym is obviously not the substantive issue. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear God, please do not respond to this here, Kavehkdf. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone has objections (or just closes it), I'm going to move this to Talk:Commerce as it appears to be a content dispute. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not just a content dispute. Just visit his talk page, you will notice that many others are also complaining about his way of reverting.

The tone of his words is not at all suitable for Wikipedia and can easily anger anyone.

Although it is not unusual for me to make minor mistakes as a newcomer, the insulting and mocking tone of this user has hurt many others.

My request to the respected admin is to reconsider this user's ability to revert.Many thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You both used a poor tone, and it caused this minor run-of-the-mill dispute to escalate to AN for no reason. The opinion of this particular respected admin is that you should discuss the content issues calmly and respectfully on the article talk page, and this AN thread should be closed. Primefac, I don't think I'd move it over if I were you, I think them starting a fresh discussion focused solely on content would work better. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this user still accuses me of copy and paste. Until he proves this accusation, I do not agree to close this discussion. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It was not a copy-paste. It appears to be a close paraphrase of the definition in the source. Since it a 1-sentence definition, I don't think this is a problem. Done. Now PLEASE start discussing this on the article talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As you said, there is no problem with that edit.As you can see, this user stubbornly insists on his position and considers the ship to be a boat! How can you argue with him?! At least my request is that you revert the edit to end this issue. Thank you very much. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway ,I believe that someone who enjoys bullying and harassing others (whether through accusations, insults or humiliation) does not deserve to have access to some high abilities. In terms of public responsibility, I found it necessary that this behavior may require reconsideration of this user's access ,so I reported it .

However ,the opinion of the administrators is respected.Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are literally describing some of your conduct on that page. Accusing people of vandalism for minor differences of opinion, telling them they can't participate because they have no knowledge, and mocking their use of vocabulary all qualify as "through accusations, insults, or humiliation." If you think this image is necessary, then make your case in the talk page , rather than inappropriately escalating a small content dispute. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out one's lack of knowledge in a field is not "mockery".Rather, if he has knowledge in that field, using an inappropriate word is "mockery".

Secondly, reverting a valid and reliable edit with personal excuses such as "It's decorative, It's a dictionary definition, It's not necessary, It's copy-paste" is a form of vandalism.

Thirdly, he has accused me of copy-paste exactly in this talk ,a claim denied by an admin.

In the end, this discussion has been raised in the talk page, but what's the point when no one answers? My request is that you at least go there and comment on the image and its caption.Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This does not require a response from anyone, but I think it's an appropriate place to point out that Wikipedia does not require editors to have knowledge in a field. Whether you are knowledgeable about boats, or another editor is not knowledgeable about boats, is irrelevant to the question of whether information belongs in an article or not. As such, there is rarely an appropriate time to criticize or point out another user's lack of knowledge. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people have replied at Talk:Commerce. I know Floquenbeam didn't want a reply on this issue but a ship is simply a large boat and a boat is a small ship. There's no clear dividing line between them so there's nothing to get worked up about. The image source says, "Commerce is the trade of goods, services, or other things of value between companies or organizations", and your caption says, "Commerce is the trading of goods, services, or other things of value by businesses or organizations". That's not an exact copy-paste but as near as damn it. It is probably not long enough to be a copyright violation but it is still a copy-paste. This has only become an issue because you have blown up a simple disagreement about an image, such as happens many times every day. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No one calls what was in that picture a boat.This is really very simple! You seem to blame me anyway.

If you think I'm guilty, I'm not afraid to apologize. But if you look a little fair and just, you will realize that it is better for @MrOllie to treat other contributors better.

If from the beginning instead of harsh behavior, the same scientific discussion was done and problems were raised, this issue would not exist.

Anyway, according to the admins, I won't continue this discussion here. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You are letting a trivial issue (ship vs. boat) rule you here instead of looking at the bigger picture. You asked for proof that the caption was a copy-paste. I provided it, but you simply ignored the issue. We (or at least I) are not concerned with finding anyone guilty or looking for apologies, but simply with getting disagreeing editors to talk to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right. But it is different for short and general definitions. Suppose that in a definition, many sources have used the same words. So we can't use these words anymore?? So what should we use? This is the definition that everyone accepts and it is found in all sources. Also, changing it may harm its meaning. So it is difficult if not impossible.

Copy-pasting is when, for example, a long article is copied with the exact same words.

As I said before, I don't want to continue the discussion here. If you want to continue, come to the Talk page in Commerce please.

Thanks. Kavehkdf1402 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• MrOllie notified on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone mind working on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled?

It's not particularly time sensitive, but I'm mildy annoyed seeing a request of mine languish in the queue for almost a month. Mach61 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring Talk discussions on Zoroastrianism in 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.

---

Started talk discussion on the merits of a previous edit to a page. Was ignored, edit warred against, and the editor claimed that "consensus" had been established when there was zero discussion on talk and I had posted a talk discussion. Seeking arbitration on this issue, as the editor has a friend in administrating and clearly refused to debate normally. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:1AM. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be accurate if my comments were being replied to. They are not. It can't be one against many when the many refuse to debate any portion of the talk. You can read it if you so wish. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, local consensus supports that the era be changed to BCE. Ideally, LeidenMasterMES should not have changed the era (w/o local consensus per WP:ERA and MOS:RETAIN) but that ship has long-sailed and now, consensus favors BCE. I can see how this might seem to be unfair but there's nothing much to do. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If you might notice based on editing history, "local consensus" is a group of unrelated editors that suddenly appeared despite having zero history on this page. If these guys are in communication behind the scene, there's little that anybody can do to stop that. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:1AM: In a "one-against-many" dispute, it can happen that the many all have the same politics, religion, or maybe even work in the same place. They may even be colluding in secret. The problem is that for every "one-against-many" case where there is a group bias, there are at least a thousand cases where the one only thinks there is.

I will be blunt: no, they are not colluding and if you fail to drop the stick, you will be sanctioned. People often watchlist pages for spotting superficial disruption, vandalism, etc. even if they have no interest in the topic — perhaps LeidenMasterMES's edits past unopposed because unlike you, they did edit the content significantly. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as to that statement, that does not change the fact that my discussion has not been responded to as of yet. Just because several editors suddenly reverted a separate edit does not mean anybody has agreed on WP:ERA. You can look at the talk page yourself and note that I went out of the way to start a separate discussion unencumbered by the previous edit warring, and still was not responded to. There cannot be consensus when zero people have responded to this statement. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been responded to. See talk page. By the way this should be closed as there is a parallel discusion with Boomerang at ANI. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (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.

Dicklyon temporarily blocked for incivility

Yesterday, I blocked Dicklyon for 72 hours for a second-offense personal attack at RMTR. This has sparked quite a bit of discussion at my talk page as well as his. A couple of admins I trust have asked me to bring this here, and if editors feel that it is best for Dicklyon and the project to shorten his block to time served, I'd have no issue with that :) Courtesy pings to @Chris troutman, Tony1, SMcCandlish, Cinderella157, Amakuru, SportingFlyer, GoodDay, BeanieFan11, Primergrey, The Wordsmith, Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, Lepricavark, Bishonen, and The Kip. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block I’m on my phone so I can’t quite type up as long a response as I’d like, but to put it semi-succinctly - Dicklyon has been blocked four times already in 2024 (and we’re not even two months in) relating to PAs, edit warring, and similar in the MOS:CAPS area that merited this block; even if the PA itself was comparatively minor, it’s become a constant issue with him, and this PA was as some would say, the straw that broke the camel’s back. These are the only way of clearly telling him to cool his behavior in the area, and honestly the fact this is a recurring problem could be extended to argue the block should, if anything, be lengthened, not shortened. That’s not what’s being debated here, however, so to conclude I don’t see any reason why a mere three-day block is unjustified or unfair, especially when the PA that originally earned it was in response to civil opposition to an edit he, with his prior editing history, was almost certainly aware would be controversial. None of this even considers his specifically adversarial treatment of GoodDay before this PA, and in addition, the block will probably be over before this discussion has any kind of a consensus anyways. The Kip 01:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  As noted in user talk already, trying to use the happening of the questionable block as a justification for why the block was not questionable is circular reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that A. The block wasn’t questionable, and B. Without it, there’s still three blocks in two months. That’s not circular reasoning. The Kip 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's more circularity. Many here are in fact questioning the block, so by definition it is questionable. The premise that you are advancing is that it shouldn't be questioned, yet you are attempting to use the idea that it shouldn't be questioned as proof of the proposition that it shouldn't be questioned. That's the very definition of circular reasoning; see the article for details. Yes, there are other blocks; that has nothing at all to do with whether this one was justified. If I had a criminal record, that doesn't mean that if I get hauled into court tomorrow and charged with murder (with flimsy evidence at that) that I should be considered guilty by default. It's a form of faulty generalization (a.k.a. inductive fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe it's questionable, but for everyone here's sake I won't expand on why exactly I believe that.

  Anyhow, it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't abide by criminal law, then. Simply put, when you have a history of block-worthy behavior your leash gets shorter every time, and with his recent block log Dicklyon's leash is dangerously close to up, hence why a comparatively minor comment merited this. The bar doesn't reset every time a block expires; otherwise we'd have plenty of far worse editors running around here getting temp-blocked for toeing the lines of behavior, but never quite going far enough to merit an indef (which Dicklyon did once receive, by the way). The Kip 06:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Terrible analogy; a 72-hour block on editing Wikipedia is not a murder sentence. And, at least in the nations in which I have lived, recidivism is taken into account, not in charging, nor in establishing guilt, but certainly at sentencing. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, way to utterly miss the point. Let's invert the analogy and see if you get it this time: If I have multiple convictions for manslaughter and get out on parole, if I end up in court again, this time accused of littering, my former transgressions don't make me automatically guilty of that one or even more likely to be guilty of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I got the point the first time; I just think it's a poor one. Recidivism is commonly considered in sentencing. In the circumstances being discussed here, I see no evidence that recidivism was considered in determining guilt; I do see that it was considered in determining what sanctions should be applied - i.e. in sentencing. The analogy does not reflect the substance of the matter analogised. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  We've even written the concept of considering recidivism into the WP:Blocking policy, Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Still not getting it. "If problems recur" does not magically mean a single admin's perception is correct that the problem has recurred. It does not magically erase the fact that an accusation (e.g. of engaging in a personal attack) has to be sound and demonstrable. It doesn't not magically indicate that recidivism is demonstrated. How on earth are could anyone have difficulty absorbing this? Roughtly half the respondents here say this was not a personal attack and/or that a block was not warranted; and of those who say the opposite, the majority are partisans in the recent RfC and review thereof in which they did not get the result they want. There is clearly not an reasoned community consensus that DL engaged in a personal attack and was properly blocked, and you just repeating that you agree with the block over and over again for subjective and circular and policy-misreading reasons does nothing to change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  This diff, referenced by the blocking admin in the initial post above, clearly shows the editor focusing on contributor, not content (cf. WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor. WP:FOC Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. WP:ASPERSION a situation where an editor accuses another of misbehavior without evidence NOTE: WP:ASPERSION also includes Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack. - a case, much like workplace harassment, where a pattern of behaviour is taken into account in determining guilt.)

  The comment in that diff is demonstrably in breach of those aspects of those policies.

  Now, one might consider that it is a relatively minor breach; and one which, for someone with a clean slate, would normally be met with a warning at most. And I would agree.

  But, that is not the circumstances in which we find ourselves. This is explicitly referenced by the blocking admin in the block log: Normally, it might land you a warning, but you were recently blocked for another personal attack against the same editor. The previous block referenced was imposed on January 22, with a duration of 48 hours and was for this comment, which is clearly beyond acceptable.

  Two comments, both focused on contributor, not on content; both focused on the same contributor; with a block for the first interleaved between. Recidivismus erat demonstratum.

  I note that partisans in the recent RfC and review thereof does not only include those Endorsing the block, but also at least one of the more vocal Overturners. Thankfully, I am not one of those partisans - this page contains no Rotary Engines - and accept in good faith that no implication of bias or guilt by association was intended.

  I might personally have been inclined to issue a final, final, final warning for the second comment. I might personally have preferred the block to have been of a slightly shorter duration (24-48 hours). But I do not believe that the block imposed is outside the discretion of the blocking admin.

  Arguments which rely on the proportion of respondents in this discussion are an argumentum ad populum. Arguments which refer to the presence or absence of reasoned community consensus, which in the potential of being formed by this very discussion are equally unsound. It is, as yet, the cat of a consensus; and I am free, here, to disagree.

  Simply asserting that someone "doesn't get it" does not make it so. Simply asserting "policy misreading" does not make it so. Simply asserting that an argument is circular does not make it so - though a reference to four blocks is, in part circular; a reference to three previous blocks is not.

  The evidence, of the personalised comment and of the pattern of behaviour, is in the diffs. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  This may be an appropriate analysis except that it takes the statement, GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves, out of the fuller context of what was said: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves. The first sentence is a rationale for the conclusion stated in the second; thereby taking it out of the ambit of a personal attack. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  That seems a far more reasonable objection than the analogy proposed above; but, for mine, still falls short. If we are discussing context, then: The first "underlying issues" sentence is an appropriate comment in the context - it directly addresses the request for a move to be reverted, and makes a substantive argument as to why it should not be. The second sentence does not. Even in context, it is ad hominem.

  In reviewing the "obstructionist" comment, did the blocking administrator consider it out of the fuller context of the whole of the edit, or did they consider it in context and still find it wanting? Did they find that the context does not justify commenting on contributor in this instance?

  Then, for either of those cases, is this within reasonable admin discretion? Answers to this question may vary among respondents here. My own view is clear. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  The post could have been left at the first sentence. Nonetheless, it substantiates the allegation of conduct made in the second. The policy is quite clear also. A evidenced allegation of conduct is not a personal attack. I do not direct the following at you, but policy is quite clear: taking the second sentence out of the fuller context is uncivil to the point of a personal attack when it is being used to justify a sanction. Perhaps one appropriate outcome from this AN discussion is that all three involved parties could have acted differently. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wrote out a set of sentence by sentence replies; but think we are perhaps at the point of already diminished returns.

  In summary:

  Disagree with the absoluteness of some of these statements; noting the list at WP:NPA is not exhaustive; and that not only the listed "personal attacks" (term of art) can lead to sanctions. Add: I guess what I mean here is that evidence is necessary, but not sufficient.

  Genuinely appreciate the non-directed nature of one particular comment; but, from the blocking admin's comments on their own and the editor's Talk pages, am not convinced that they did take the one sentence out of the fuller context of the edit. Speaking for myself, I certainly did not. Before opining here, I considered that comment in context and concluded that the context - the full edit text, but also the forum in which the edit was made, and the utility of the comment to that forum - did not sufficiently mitigate.

  Agree with the final sentence. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the example crimes chosen are hyperbolic such as to detract from the argument. There is no murder charge here, nor does anyone go to court for littering. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you get a littering ticket and challenge in, then yes you will in fact go to court. Totally missing the point anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block Last month, Dicklyon referred to GoodDay as a 'thorn in my side'. That wasn't even the worst thing he said about GoodDay in that discussion, but it does show that he needs to rethink his attitude toward that particular editor. I don't believe that an early unblock would encourage that outcome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That edit, and the one preceding it, were egregious personal attacks. But Dicklyon has already served a block for them. This new block needs to be justified on the basis of subsequent conduct. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  This block is justified on the basis of subsequent conduct. My point is that lifting this block would not help to address the underlying problem of Dicklyon's repeated hostility toward a specific editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't overturn, per The Kip, who mostly sums up my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block per the rationale provided by Amakuru at the editor's Talk page. - Rotary Engine ^talk 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I was one of those on the user talk page. What Dicklyon said did not, to my mind, rise to the level of a block. I understand there was a larger context of past blocks and other editing, but that should have resulted in a thread here, not a unilateral block for claiming someone was "being obstructionist." Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block I am unimpressed by multiple editors on both talk pages and their arguments. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are bright line rules to follow, not an exhaustive set of "If you don't explicitly say Y, you'll avoid sanctions" style training. Frequently incivil users should be held to the same or higher standards, not be excused from our usual policies based on which content dispute they're working at. Soni (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the block. GoodDay, if you're going to object to a page move, can you please give a reason for the objection? Not just that you see it as controversial, but some substantive reason you oppose it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  GoodDay's response to this (from my talk page) is telling:

  Hello. As you've requested. In 2023 an RM was held (which I think I took part in) concerning whether or not to move NHL Conference Finals to lower-case. The result was -no consensus- to move. It would be advisable to hold another RM there, if one believes a consensus to move, is now attainable.

  This is precisely what I did not ask for. I am frustrated. I think I'm many levels short of accusing GD of being obstructionist in the wrong venue, but it's not so odd to me that someone did reach that level of frustration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not GoodDay, but the issue/substantive reason for opposing has been that the moves were done without any formation of consensus, or any attempt to do so. These moves are known to be controversial (see WP:ARBATC and prior contentious RMs/RfCs in the area, many of which Dicklyon had either started or participated in), and as a result RMs or RfCs should’ve been opened regarding the hockey pages if he felt so strongly about downcasing the titles; however, he instead did so unilaterally, citing an entirely unrelated RM/RfC on NBA pages as justification to do so. The Kip 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you think someone's move rationale is wrong, that would be a good reason to undo the move, and it would be helpful to say so. If you anticipate controversy, you can bring the move up for discussion at many available venues. If you don't personally object to a move, you shoudn't revert it. It would be a detriment to the project if people did otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't personally object to a move, you shoudn't revert it.

  The problem is that we have procedures in place; this to a degree advocates for WP:IAR in a space where IAR is a dangerous precedent to set. Whether or not I or others agree or disagree with Dicklyon’s edits, there should at least be agreement that the proper channels should be gone through rather than unilaterally imposing one’s own view of the topic. The Kip 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't frame the problem that way, and even if I did, I wouldn't suggest reversion without substantive objection as a remedy to that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I frame the problem as Dicklyon unilaterally moving a page for which there was a recent 'no consensus' RM. That is a substantive reason to undo the move. I see no reason for GoodDay to face criticism for taking this to RMTR. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm using "substantive" to mean "dealing with the substance, rather than the procedure, of the matter", but whatever. Assume you're right about that one. How about this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  YMMV, but I'm not concerned about the distinction between dealing with the substance vs. dealing with the procedure. It has been well established that these page moves are controversial, so I believe they need to go through RM. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block. If further issues with Dicklyon arise, the next step should be arbitration, IMHO, since the community failed to resolve any of Dicklyon's BATTLEGROUND editing in the MOS:CAPS area in the last ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon_and_semi-automated_edits), which was closed five months ago. Some1 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse regardless of whether Dicklyon is on the right side in the current kerfuffle, it doesn't excuse the conduct. I have not participated therein or in the close review, so fully neutral. Should be blocked longer next time because it's clear from his history that if he believes he's correct he will do whatever he wants to get the outcome he prefers. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I'm more than a little concerned that this is Dicklyon's second personal attack on GoodDay, the first happening on 22 January, and his forth block since the start of the year. With all due respect to Chris troutman, if Dickylon's comment had happened in isolation, I'd agree that it maybe wouldn't rise to the level of a block and instead it would have been warning worthy. But Dickylon was blocked a month ago for a personal attack against the same editor. Making a second personal attack in such a short timeframe is not a good look behaviourally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Chris Troutman. That's a very mild description of behavior that does not rise to a blockable offense. If the block is for a pattern of incivility, then that should be made clear, but in terms of an inciting incident, this is pretty mild. This is an over-sensitive response. Grandpallama (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block The insinuations about the motives of other editors is just one sign of a real problem. The comment was made as part of an RMTR after Dicklyon unilaterally moved the page to lowercase. His move occurred one year (to the exact day) after he had previously unilaterally moved it, was reverted at RMTR, and opened an RM on the same page, which was closed as no consensus with the majority being against the move. Last year's RM was still the most recent thread on the article talkpage. I fundamentally do not believe Dicklyon's excuse that he had "forgotten"[34] the previous discussion, exactly one year ago. If true, it would mean that he didn't even glance at the talkpage before moving. I also don't buy that he assumed a discussion about a different page for a completely different sport meant this this move would be uncontroversial (especially when I blocked him for that exact same thing 3 weeks ago). The persistent incivility is just icing on the cake. What's worst is that he's probably right about the actual capitalization, but his conduct shows that he can't work productively with others in this area. If this continues, it may be time to consider a topic ban from page moves and/or article title/capitalization discussions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, with respect to good User:Chris troutman, given the context of User:Dicklyon's frequent and sustained misbehaviors during historic anti-capital-ism crusades (and blocks therefrom), the second-offense personal attack at RMTR counts IMHO as an egregious taunting attack. Kudos to theleek to seeing something burning and stomping it out. I believe leek has demonstrated appropriate respect to Dicklyon throughout. As an aside, I have found over time that Dicklyon is a quite obstinate fellow and often careless of what others think. Most of the time, IMHO, Dicklyon has found himself on the right side of wiki-history. I have grown to respect him enormously and be thankful for his many micro-focussed contributions. I believe his agency (and stridency) represent an extreme example of WP:BOLD. That's why his frustrating and frequent violations of our social norms are so troubling. I have seen great editors walk off the pedia because of Dicklyon's relentless misbehavior (before their previous indefinite community ban). This is inexcusable behavior and it has been stopped. We'll soon be at longer term sanctions again, sadly. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Block If this were a first offense, I'd be inclined to cut them some slack and let it go with a warning. But they have a rather long history of problematic editing, mostly involving edit warring but personal attacks as well. Their block log is frankly disheartening for an experienced editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but only in the context of working to progress on an overall issue. IMO the individual issue alone was not enough for a block. Dicklyon is an immensely valuable contributor. Folks with that many edits can fall into a pattern getting high-handed, overly blunt/nasty, too impatient and other things. This can be a part of an effort of fixing any such issues and to keep this valuable editor on a nice course. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the 72 hour block. But for me the phrase "beyond the pale" means something like "worst possible thing they could have said/done". I can think of worse things to call someone than an "obstructionist". So I was a bit surprised about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I have seen "beyond the pale" comments many times on Wikipedia, and this certainly isn't one of them. Galobtter (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1, as that stood out to me also. Grandpallama (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Plus people really, really need to stop using that phrase. See Pale of Settlement and the Pale for the origin of the term, which is bound up in centuries of ethno-national trauma for at least two large groups of people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Pales are fences or boundaries. The OED defines the term as:

  beyond the pale (of): outside or beyond the bounds (of). beyond the pale: outside the limits of acceptable behaviour; unacceptable or improper.

  Which is exactly what the discussion here is setting out to establish. On the origin of the term it says:

  The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale (see sense I.4b) or the Pale of Settlement in Russia (see sense I.4c), is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting; will look into it. Even if the geographical matters end up being a folk etymology, the perception is common, so the offense potential remains real.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn; while Dicklyon has indeed ruffled a lot of feathers, and could probably use some cooling off, describing another editor's behavior as "obstructionist" is not a personal attack. It's a critique of one's editing and can often be apt. Seems like this block was more of a lifetime achievement award. Sigh. If Dicklyon cracks ten blocks in 2024, I say we all chip in and buy him tickets to the NFL Draft[sic] in 2025! As the zoomers would say, "no cap"! Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. DL's comment in question was clearly not actually a personal attack, but a comment on behavior/action. It did not need diffs because the action was opening an unconstructive RMTR request to obstruct moves the basis for which was already discussed and sourced in detail, and DL's comment was directly in response to that request; i.e. there is no point diffing the post you are replying to, and obstruction of a move is self-evidently obstruction, so there is no "accusation" to "prove". What DL could have done better is maybe not use an "-ist" word which can often sound more combative than intended (unless a uniformly positive or neutral term like "encyclopedist" :-); but this is not TonePolicePedia. Could have also linked to the previous discussions of sourcing showing that this sort of phrase is not "capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources". That said, DL now provides diffs of related behavior at his talk page, and they are even more indicative that GoodDay was being obstructive, having earlier engaged in related move reverts without any substantive rationale, only the bureaucratic basis they they weren't run through the full RM process. RM is not required except when a move is likely to be controversial, but there is no controversy if the matter has already been aired out. The discussion at the related wikiproject page shows various participants there in support of the moves, and no substantive objection, just repetition of a desire to invoke RM process for its own sake. We have WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy for a reason. Neverthless, I'm pretty sure that DL gets, now, that any moves pertaining to sports leagues and events will be better done via full RM process, due to tempers running hot lately in this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, the comment, while inappropriate, was not so uncivil it deserved a block, and I think any compounding factors from previous blocks should be weighed against the high levels of tension in the topic area. Mach61 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. Lest anyone think I'm coming here from a generic sympathy with Dicklyon, I was the last-but-one admin to block him, for what I thought was an egregious personal attack. This does not rise to the level of a block for me. There is a real danger in blocking an editor with an already lengthy block log over a minor offence that would have been allowed to slide coming from someone else, in that we can create a self-fulfilling prophecy about said editor's bad behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block Dicklyon's WP:FANATIC-like behaviour isn't helping in capitalization-related issues. And he seems to have learned nothing about civilly interacting with others from his ANI thread from last year - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon_and_semi-automated_edits. Also, his reading of MOS:AT appears to be that no capitals are needed in article titles at all, which is just grossly untrue. Perhaps it is time to discuss an editing restriction for Dicklyon in the area of capitalization issues, so he can contribute to Wikipedia without getting caught up in capitalization issues that end just end up in heated discussions and uncivil attacks of other Wikipedians.Canuck^{89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page} 04:41, February 27, 2024 (UTC)
  • "no capitals are needed in article titles at all": we could do without the strawman. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • MOS and articles titles are both listed under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. AFAICS, the "heated discussions and uncivil attacks" have not been limited to one person or "side" w.r.t. capitalization around sports topics.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Vanamonde93. A few posts above seem to want a bet each way (i.e. the "obstructionist" comment wasn't worth a block, but oh, wait, in the overall context). Really? Sounds like progressive punishment, in which the bar is raised at each stage. No, keep the bar at the same height over time for all editors. I have advised Dicklyon to depersonalise and soften any comments he makes—without wishing to endorse this hasty, unproductive block. Tony (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm sorry, but we can't be the civility police. There are too many cultures with different ideas of civility here, and no universal standard for what is ok and not ok, it is entirely too subjective so it ALWAYS leads to uneven enforcement. Personal attacks are different and obvious, but blocking for a mildly uncivil comment is going to be controversial and should be avoided. The comment was a bit rude, and worth a warning, but not blockworthy by itself. If it was an ongoing issue with many instances, these are better handled at ANI with the community deciding, not a single admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, but... That comment on its own wasn't worth a block, and I am uneasy about using an editor's block log to justify it, but I do think that Dicklyon needs a rest from this particular arena. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, per Dennis. I'll repeat what I said on Theleekycauldron's page: this was an unreasonable block for a fairly mild comment. Like Vanamonde, I'm not here out of general sympathy with Dicklyon. I agree that Dicklyon's attack on GoodDay a month ago was nasty, and I was the first to reproach Dicklyon for it. Perhaps I should have blocked. Anyway, after my comment, Vanamonde did block him for it. A previous unacceptable comment, for which Dicklyon has already been sanctioned (and, note, has already apologized), is not a good reason to block him for saying GoodDay is being obstructionist. Would you still have blocked if you had known he had apologized for the earlier comment, Theleekycauldron? I know you thought he had not, and used that as one argument for your block. (Here, you become aware of it.) Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Theleekycauldron has not replied to my question above, despite editing today — including editing AN itself — perhaps my ping didn't work. They sometimes don't. Trying again. Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Ah, thanks for the reping, Bishonen! I genuinely assumed it was more of a rhetorical question, I've gotten a couple of those over the past few days as well. To answer: Dicklyon's apology for the previous doesn't change my view on whether the current block was appropriate, though I do give points for good faith. An apology is a poor bandaid if you hurt the person in the same spot again – if an apology is meaningful as a commitment to be better, that commitment is broken on the second offense. Would it be worse if he hadn't? Sure. But I still think a block was warranted (although I am cognizant of the reasonable minds who differ in this thread and will take them into account going forward), and I still think an escalation was appropriate under the circumstances, given the insufficiency of said apology to prevent repeat behavior. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Bishonen—the voice of reason. Tony (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per the comments I made at Leeky's talk page and also Dicklyon's talk page. This isn't about the incident itself, which of course wouldn't merit a block on its own, but about the ongoing pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct over these capitalisation questions and, of late, a seemingly endless stream of low-level needling of other editors and questioning their motives in the wrong venues. If Dicklyon genuinely believes that GoodDay is being "obstructionist", then they should discuss that directly with the user on their talk page, showing evidence and diffs of what they're talking about, or raise the issue at WP:AN/I with the same so the community can assess. In the case at hand, Dickylon moved the page NHL Conference Finals to lower case without discussion, and (in good faith) did not notice that said page had an RM for the same move last year that failed to find consensus. GoodDay objected and raised a RM/TR request, which by the way is actually the proper due process, per WP:RMUM, particularly for previously discussed moves, and Dicklyon then said the page should not be reverted because GoodDay is obstructionist. I have often disagreed with GoodDay myself on various issues, but like any other editor they have the right to edit here without constantly having to face aspersions and accusations of bad faith. I really don't want there to be any long-term sanctions issued against Dicklyon because they do great work in general, but something's gone a bit wrong so far in 2024 and this needs to improve starting now.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I understand the history, but I do not think that particular interaction rises to anywhere close to a level of a block. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn The comment from the 22nd was inexcusable and Dicklyon was rightly blocked for it, and has apologised. However the I agree with others that this last comment comes nowhere close to blockable territory. It's the kind of thing where it would have been helpful for a friendly editor to to trout him a reminder to keep to the content not other editors, but nothing more. Editors should be on their best behaviour, but equally we shouldn't have to walk on eggshells. That's a balancing act, and this block fails that balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse My last interaction with this editor was battleground in nature[35] and that's been the pattern every time I see this editor pop up. I would recommend that this editor be topic banned indefinitely from MOS issues regarding capitalization. This type of behavior has been a problem for a very long time and it needs to stop. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Not so much 'per block log length', which is—perhaps—unfair, but at least partly due to the number of blocks this year and we're only in sodding February. Recidivism is important context. If Dicklyon 'needs a rest' from this topic area, it is merely another in a long line of 'rests' he has been encouraged to take. Often enforced. Regarding this specific issue, while the offence itself may not seem particularly egregious, it illustrates a mindset in which this is perfectly acceptable language to use with other editors and the level of respect they can be approached with. ——Serial 14:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, four blocks in the first two months of the year is a lot, but in fairness, it's a leap year, so February is longer than usual. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I see Primefac recently referred to a named user as "an idiot" here. Block time, surely, if "obstructionist" gets Dicklyon 72 hours. Would you like to self-block, Primefac? Bishonen | tålk 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC).

  Consider this an invitation on my part for them to strike it. Besides being a personal attack, it's unhelpful. Casual rudeness is corrosive. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I just finished editing that comment to tone down the language; their subsequent reply made a not-unreasonable point making my initial comment a bit spicy. And yes, I should not have used that sort of language in the first place. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  If we're playing incivility poker, I'll see your 'Idiot' comment and raise you to 'Piss off... you miserable little swine', by Tony1, which Bishonen subsequently defended on account of the, err, policy that Tony1 was a 'another of the FAC greats', whomsoever they are. ——Serial 16:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Nobody's nose is perfectly clean when it comes to incivility, and civility issues are never policed consistently. On a thread higher up the page, an admin rather rudely dismissed me as the person who chronically diminishes civility. This aspersion was not accompanied by evidence, although I suspect my prior opining on the topic of inconsistent civility enforcement is what prompted the remark. I'm sure one could easily compile a long list of recent instances in which admins made personal attacks or were otherwise rude/uncivil, but none of that would negate the problem with DL's editing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak endorse. I can see both sides here. The block was in good faith and justifiable, certainly; whether it was necessary and preventative I'm less certain. Ultimately we should expect an editor who was recently for personally attacking and bickering with another editor to refrain from further bickering with that very same editor and a block was reasonable for that recidivism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Dennis Brown and ActivelyDisinterested. The comment doesn't merit a block. Yes, I understand that previous incidents have, but not this one. It might be a good idea if he avoids the topic area, but that's his choice. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Block makes sense if Dicklyon was on Double Secret Probation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to title/sentence-case page-move ban - I think everyone here knows I'm a flag-bearer of coming down hard on incivility, but the comment in question here was so innocuous (and reasonably fair comment) as to boggle the mind why anyone thought that a block was a reasonable response, even considering WP:RECIDIVISM. However, there is clearly feeling among the sort of editors who regularly participate in move discussions of this sort that Dicklyon's participation is unproductive and disruptive: besides frequent personal attacks they bludgeon discussions, won't let things go, often relitigate settled discussions and frequently do things based on tenuously-related discussions or directly in the face of consensus. We're just inviting more problems if we allow them to continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  completely uninvolved editor, speaking up on behalf of other uninvolved editors: litigation of capitalization has jumped the shark. Pick the two worst offenders and give them a short topic ban. If disruption continues do two more. Maybe create a separate noticeboard for those who care. Draw straws or something. The disproportionate amount of time that is sucked up by these disputes is mind-boggling, and I prefer the lower case myself. Elinruby (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I don't think we should adopt any enforcement model that resembles the Hunger Games. But the long-running capitalization dispute could be bound for Arbcom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have heard of Hunger Games but never watched it. I believe it was something like the Thunderdome? Anyway.

  I am against escalating this to Arbcom for the same reasons. Nobody cares but the people who are in these disputes. The content creators of Wikipedia just want to know what the standardized format is.

  Well, snicker, maybe I care a little about over-capitalization, but putting up with it would be a small price to pay for not seeing something about this every time I venture onto a noticeboard. It's behaviour at this point. Flip a coin, people. I will now go away and tend to my own tasks. Regular programming will now resume. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - where's the blockable personal attack here? GiantSnowman 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would once again like to point out that, as I mentioned in my !vote, we're still debating a block that will now end within the next 24 hours. The Kip 09:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, well, the blocking admin dragged her feet about bringing it here for review; it took her 22 hours. Opening a discussion right away, or instead of blocking, would have been preferable. Compare my comment here, when she proposed waiting still longer. But I still think it would be worth actually lifting the block if it's deemed to be inappropiate. It makes a difference to how the block log looks, and to how the blockee feels; blocks are scarlet letters, not just a matter of not being able to edit for such-and-such a number of hours. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: agreed, this deserves an assessment of consensus before the block expires. It'd be pretty silly if admins could evade review of their actions by time-limiting them towards mootness – I'm not intending to do that here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's frustrating, and the blocking admin behavior here is subpar. Even though the Endorse comments outnumber the Overturns, it's not by a high proportion; it's clear the community doesn't have consensus the block was appropriate. theleekycauldron claimed they were bringing this to AN for review, but their earlier comment shows their disregard for a differing opinion and that there was no actual good-faith intention to lift the block if it lacked consensus (I still think a block was warranted (although I am cognizant of the reasonable minds who differ in this thread and will take them into account going forward)). It was 17 Endorse, 15 Oppose (16, if you count Floq) at the time she made that statement, so abundantly clear her actions did not have consensus backing from the community. Grandpallama (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that it is the status quo action that is to be overturned by consensus, normally of around two-thirds, not a consensus needed in favour of the action. Administrators are elected because the community places its trust in their judgment. It would be an untenable situation if any block could be overturned simply on the grounds that not enough people supported it. Hence there has to be a clear majority against it in order to counterweigh the trust originally placed. ——Serial 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Technically, yes. But since the question here is whether the block would have been supported in the first place, and whether theleekycauldron should have placed it on such a contentious claim of NPA without seeing if her thinking is in alignment with the community, and whether it should thus be maintained, I'd say that technicality ignores the reality of the situation. The discussion here shows there never would have been a clear majority to support this from the outset, and the notion that we elect admins because we place trust in their judgment is exactly how this discussion came to be--an admin making a call that caused members of the community (and of her fellow admin corps, specifically) to question her judgment. The foot-dragging that Bish has noted is a part of that problem: take an action that wouldn't have community support, then delay submitting for review, then count on the timer to run out so that your action stands. This is not what I expect from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and GoodDay's conduct WP:NPA states: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks. WP:RM#CM states: A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; [or,] someone could reasonably disagree with the move. GoodDay stating, No RM was held, does not satisfy either of the conditions for contesting the move. An RM is not mandatory. The statement by DL that GoodDay was ... being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves is a comment on GoodDay's behaviour. By way of evidence, DL also stated: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. To remove any doubt, DL has provided more specific evidence at his TP here (subsequent to the block). While raising this issue at WP:RMT may not be the most appropriate venue, it is not excluded. The rationale for the block is not supported by WP:NPA and should be overturned. Furthermore, if we are scrutinising DL's conduct and the rationale for the block, this cannot be done in isolation of GoodDay's conduct giving rise to DL's statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Outside of the context of Dicklyon's ongoing incivility this is very minor, but the comment was very much made within that context so considering it in isolation is wikilawyering. There are three possibilities here: (1) Dicklyon knows personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate but chooses to continue making them anyway, in which case blocking them until such time as they are willing to contribute collegiately is appropriate; (2) Dicklyon knows personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate but is unable to understand what is and isn't a personal attack/personalising a dispute, in which case we have CIR issues that have been going on so long that we should be seriously considering a ban on those grounds; (3) Dicklyon doesn't know (or understand) that personal attacks and personalising disputes are inappropriate, in which case we have very serious CIR issues and are probably a net negative to the project. For his sake, I hope it's 1.
  If GoodDay's behaviour is sufficiently bad that it rises to the levels of needing sanction then the answer is to sanction both of them, not to give them both a free pass. The latter is how we end up with toxic editing environments that drive editors away from the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Their targeting of GoodDay needs to be addressed and this was an appropriate way to do so. Dicklyon also knows better than to try to act like one league downcasing "Finals" to "finals" is justification for downcasing every instance, he's been involved in numerous move discussions because of this exact premise. Hell he literally started the last move discussion for NHL Conference Finals that ended in no consensus. He's well aware that different leagues may result in different capitalizations but went ahead with it anyways, despite the obvious and expected pushback. I basically begged Dicklyon in a long threaded conversation last month to start holding RMs when downcasing "Draft" to "draft" instead of "being bold" (he eventually declined this request). On February 8th I reached out and said: "I think, at this point in time, it's safe to presume that renaming pages from "Draft" to "draft" would be moves that someone could reasonably disagree with. As such, moving forward and based on WP:PCM, would you please start RM discussions prior to moving pages from "Draft" to "draft"? – He then went forward with the move I was directly referring to, using a move summary of "Overwhelmingly lowercase in sources; no conceivable reason for anyone to object", despite me telling him directly that it was clearly not an uncontroversial one. He was blocked for this, so I'm not requesting any type of action on it, but it's relevant to the current situation. This is an extension and another clear example of Dicklyon's inability to work well with others and respect the process when it comes to their capitalization efforts. If I'm counting correctly, Dicklyon has been blocked 11 times for edit warring, twice for personal attacks, once for move warring, and once for socking. They've been blocked four times this year and it seems like every time they apologize. At what point do we say enough is enough? Time and again they continue to move pages, despite an obvious and expected pushback, in direct opposition to WP:PCM, and then they criticize anybody who reverts them. GoodDay had good reason to oppose the move given that there had been a previous discussion on the topic. In this case, it goes against both aspects of WP:PCM, in that there would be expected pushback and there had at one point been a debate about the best title for the page. I'd support a topic ban or restriction of some kind. This is a ridiculous amount of leash we've given to someone who should clearly know and understand the lines but continues to disrespect them. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm going to share an opinion without making a vote because I'm on the fence.

  On the one hand, saying someone is "just being obstructionist" is not what I would call an "attack" or "uncivil." It's negative, it's criticism, but it's not an attack, not a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, neither of which prohibit criticism of others. In isolation, if someone were blocked for saying that, I'd vote to overturn that block.

  On the other hand, this isn't in isolation. More than a dozen editors have said, in so many words, "enough is enough," and I agree with them. IMO if the block cited WP:DISRUPT or WP:BATTLE instead of citing WP:NPA, it would have been roundly endorsed, maybe not even challenged.

  Then there is the question of whether a block, as opposed to a ban, was the best remedy. I'm not sure about that, either. It seems a sanction was warranted, but perhaps not this particular sanction, and perhaps something stronger than this sanction.

  I don't like the idea of endorsing a "right block for the wrong reason," nor voting to overturn a 72hr block when I think an indef TBAN may have been merited.

  It's a tough call, and I have the luxury of not having to make it. What I am sure about, though, is that I disagree that 22 hours is "foot dragging." It's hardly worth pointing out that a 72hr block review will take longer than the block; that's true of every short sanction. I don't think it's wise to rush, or to pressure others to rush, simply to try and come to an answer before a short sanction expires. I want admins to be able to sleep on it and take a day to decide whether their actions should be self-reversed or not. I want the community to have the time to be able to consider difficult or complex issues and come to well-thought-out consensus, not rushed consensus. It's not like Dicklyon was sentenced to 72 hours of torture; it's OK if he has to not edit for three days, even if the sanction ends up being overturned later.

  One thing that the split vote proves to all of us is that this was neither a clearly good, nor a clearly bad, block. The only thing that's clear is that opinion is divided, and that is clearly a reason not to rush to any conclusions. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  One thing that's come up periodically over the years is that the community has consistently struggled with how to deal with needling. Which is to say a series of remarks made by someone over time that disparage, slight, or irritate, each of which individually may not be an issue, but that when taken as a whole poison the collaborative environment. I don't think any consensus is likely to emerge from this discussion either, but it may be worth bringing up again some time in the future when passions from this have cooled and the issue can be discussed more abstractly. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn I get that Dicklyon has had several previous blocks, but this just isn't a personal attack. Calling someone "obstructionist" is so mild it should never be blockworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter much, at this point, but a late Overturn. If it's a history-based problem, then I guess there are interaction bans (which I'm not fond of either), otherwise saying someone is "being obstructionist" simply is not a personal attack. Maybe it's an incorrect description of behavior, I don't care, we all occasionally fail in our judgment of other people's behavior, but it's not a personal attack. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This should probably be closed as moot, as the block has expired and there is no obvious consensus that it was a bad block. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even the admin whose action is under review seems to disagree with that idea: It'd be pretty silly if admins could evade review of their actions by time-limiting them towards mootness – I'm not intending to do that here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block per a lot of the above. And yes I'm aware the block has expired. JM (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - This conduct does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of a block. Moreover, as I am sure has been mentioned here already, Dick has already apologized for his conduct. Overturn the block and move on. Obstructionst comes off as more of a comment on editing, not a personal attack. Bad block. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Expired – Thank you all for your opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see some of y'all are still arguing about the expired block. That really doesn't matter any more. Now if you want to get into the basis for my admittedly rude comments about GoodDay's behavior, that does deserve a bit more attention, as Cinderella's attempt to discuss it below was shut down without getting to the bottom of it, or even getting my input (as I was blocked at the time, remember?). It wasn't just one or two things, as some of my quoted comments to and about him illustrate (the closer below thought it was about "the reversion of undiscussed moves" which really misses the big picture as well as the details). But maybe that's for another time. Dicklyon (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  GoodDay was well within their right to request the move be reversed. Especially given that one of the ones they had requested to be reverted had a previous move discussion which ended in no consensus. As we've discussed in the past, per WP:PCM, any type of move that one could expect an objection to (which should obviously include pages that include "Draft" or "Final" in the title for any major sports league) should have a move discussion started prior to the move. You know this, it's part of the consensus building process, respect the process and don't try to bypass it when opposition to a move is obviously anticipated. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Dicklyon by now, it can be left to another time. That time being when we're all back here sooner rather than later and discussing your imminent indef blocking for IDHT recidivism. Why I say that? Because your comment above shows that if you honestly think people here were merely 'giving opinions', then you have somewhat misjudged the situation, and 'if' becomes 'when'. ——Serial 15:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect your correct just based on comments left since the block ended. Calling another editor's comment a "rant"[36] suggests no lessons have been learned. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Criticism of another's argument is not hostility. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  When an editor has been recently warned over and over one would think they wouldn't be calling other editor's good faith arguments "rants." That's not a simple criticism and the suggestion is rather weak. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Really, this is a good faith argument? : "This notion that the MOS somehow supersedes official formal titles -- or that individual editors know better than the league as to what the NHL is permitted to call its own institutions -- is getting very, very tiresome." The dictionary definition of a rant is a long angry or impassioned statement; maybe this is not long enough to qualify? But it's certainly a nasty strawman, since nobody had suggested that any Wikipedian knows better than the league, nor did any of us suggest any restrictions on how the league could name and style their stuff. Give me a better word than rant for next time I want to call out such nonsense. I think his real point was that he finds following guidelines very tiresome – maybe he should have just said so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't care about your content dispute. I care about your general inability to discuss your disputes in a civil manner. Nemov (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  ^^^This. DL's inability to listen to what others are saying, immediately after a block for, err, not listening to what other's are saying, is almost Olypmian in the dizzy heights of IDHT it reaches. ——Serial Number 54129 14:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I requested (at RMTR) that three unilateral page moves be reversed, with the reasoning that no RM was held for two of the pages & a previous RM was held with a no consensus result on the other page. Seeing as my requests were accepted (i.e the page moves were reversed), it's obvious that my reasoning was accepted as valid. Now, Dicklyon's block expired days ago, so let's rap this up & close the "block review". GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above already, "(the closer below thought it was about "the reversion of undiscussed moves" which really misses the big picture as well as the details)", my observation that this is just you being obstructionist was not about that particular revert proposal, which was perfectly fine as a standalone thing, but rather about it being just one more step in a multi-year history of routinely obstructing efforts to bring capitalization in sports articles in line with guidelines. You're of course entitled to your opinions in oppostion to such efforts, but as so many here have observed, your behavior goes beyond that, routinely flying in the face of guidelines and creating lots of extra work for everyone, and might be fairly characterized the way I did. Hopefully I won't be blocked yet again for reminding you of that observation, and of how many people thought it was fair for me to let you know that that's how you were coming across. But, as I also said above, this is not the time and place to get to the bottom of that. If you are particularly interested in what actions of yours are behind my observation, I'm happy to have that conversation at either of our talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good time for you to focus on your own behavior and not on others. If you're TBANed from the MOS, you won't be able to remind anyone or have any conversation about any of it. If your take-away here is that the community thinks you were right, you're wrong. Don't ignore how many people voting overturn nonetheless raised serious concerns about your behavior. You don't have to be contrite but you should at least be quiet. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn while this is an after-the-fact point after "time served", it should be noted significant opposition was present. I concur with Vandemonde (sp). If nothing else, it should be noted. Buffs (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The alleged transgressions here, to the extent that I can find them, seem pretty mild. Calling it like you see it is not necessarily a personal attack. I have certainly been on the receiving end of worse from people who were not blocked and are still around and do not seem chastised. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. We're at 13,000 words and still going over a 3 day block that expired 6 days ago. Perhaps it is time to close this as no consensus? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: Quite. No consensus for what, though...? ——Serial Number 54129 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus to overturn. No consensus to endorse. No consensus to do much of anything is my read of this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. But as someone who voiced the opinion to overturn the block, I would like to echo something that has been reverberating here. Prospectively, the odds are against you, Dicklyon, if you don't stop dismissing other people's contributions and behavior with that kind of language. I do not like the increasing rigidity of some of the civility enforcement on en.wp, but it's a reality, and I've seen other good editors crash and even get site-banned for stuff I did not deem banworthy. The dynamics of civility-enforcement are only one factor for my not betting money on you not being sanctioned if you don't reconsider; other factors include repeatedly being the topic of reports on this board, for example. I do think you should follow Levivich's advice here, even if there's something unfair about telling the target of a thread to shut up. Sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay's conduct at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

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

---

As noted in my comment above, ... if we are scrutinising DL's conduct and the rationale for the block, this cannot be done in isolation of GoodDay's conduct giving rise to DL's statement. DL made this statement regarding GoodDay's conduct: GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves; accompanied by the statement in evidence: The underlying issues on these were settled in the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. DL has offered further evidence at their TP, which I am copying into this thread below. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're asking for evidence of the obstruction I was referring to, it's these:

• [37] and [38] Reverting my changes, solely on the basis of no RM done, without opposing the substance of these case fixes.
• [39] Reverting change to disambig page, leaving it in an inconsistent state
• [40] Requests at WP:RMTR to revert my moves, without mentioning a reason to prefer the capitalized form (which is exactly where we were when I wrote the removed personal attack "GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves", not as a personal attack, but as a characterization of these edits).

If he had said "I think these should be capped, because ..." or something like that, then we'd have something to discuss at an RM discussion. But neither he nor anyone at the discussion he started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#NHL Conference Finals moved to NHL conference finals has given a reason to prefer caps. It's all just procedural obstruction: "Not without going the RM route." After a month of discussion at the RM at Talk:NBA conference finals, I thought we had hashed out all the relevant issues and arguments, though we would point out different data of course. That discussion seemed to me like it served to make these others clearly within the consensus to follow MOS:CAPS. So why does he want to discuss all that yet again? There's no remaining controversy. I don't get it. Also note that at that wikiproject discussion, several editors (Hockey project members, I presume) defended my moves as correct and appropriate. I'm wondering if that's why the RMTR revert requests have not been done yet. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Copied here from User talk:Dicklyon#February 2024. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue with GoodDay requesting that these moves be reverted. Dicklyon should know these are not uncontroversial moves at this point after 10+ years of dealing with capitalization discussions. I could tell you without thinking about it that they would be and I've only been paying attention to these discussions for a year. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Again, this is just more WP:BATTLEGROUND activity on this topic. Frankly, the regulars in this CAPS war need to stand down. Calling GoodDay an obstructions is just another baseless accusation. Nemov (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• The moves were obviously controversial, a previous discussion which Dicklyon started determined there was no consensus for the move (and in move discussions, "no consensus" means don't move the page), and then Dicklyon moved them anyway, cherrypicking a consensus from a similar discussion on a different topic. The moves should not have happened, and GoodDay asking for them to be reverted was the correct course of action. Dicklyon is relying on first mover advantage (pun not intended): they moved the pages to their preferred title without a valid rationale and are now demanding a rationale for moving them back, which is treating the debate as a battle to be won, and that's not how this works. Doubling down on that tendentious logic suggests they should not participate in this debate any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having said that, maybe BilledMammal's NAC close of Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 25 February 2023 should be revisited. The closer acknowledged that those supporting the move (to sentence case) had the stronger overall argument, but then closed as no consensus anyway on the basis of numerical opposition. That is precisely the sort of bad close described by WP:YOGURT. Still, the approach to an improper close is to review or challenge it, not wait a while and then move the page anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Their move reason was Change to sentence case (MOS:AT).[41] That seems like a plausible GF rationale, even if one finds it debatable. —Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a good rationale to move a page where you've already proposed the move for that specific reason and it was found to have no consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I mentioned this above, but I don't think GoodDay should continue to make requests to revert moves if the only reason provided above is "No RM was held". I don't think the disambiguation page edit was good. None of this is major stuff, but if we can suggest an improvement to a prolific editor, we should. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if undiscussed moves shouldn't be reverted, why does WP:RM#TR have a separate "requests to revert undiscussed moves" subsection? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Surely we agree that not all undiscussed moves should be reverted. Some should. When pushing for such a reversion, one should provide a reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I wish the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" was in a guideline, but it's only an essay. —Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Attempts to shift the scrutiny onto GoodDay are inappropriate. GoodDay has not done anything wrong. The problem is with Dicklyon's editing, specifically regarding both his battleground approach to article capitalization and his repeated personalized remarks about GoodDay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Followup discussion

Regarding GoodDay's conduct

1. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for NHL conference finals with the rationale Recent unilateral page move, goes against 2023 RM result. This reason is consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
2. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for KHL conference finals with the rationale No RM was held. This reason is not consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
3. GoodDay posted a resquests at WP:RMTR to revert the undiscussed move for Conference finals with the rationale No RM was held. This reason is not consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM.
4. The page Conference finals is a disambiguation to three pages: NHL conference finals, KHL conference finals and NBA conference finals. The last was down-cased as a result of Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. Each league is divided into two conferences, eastern and western, and each conference conducts a final. Each page from the disamibuation page discusses the two conference finals for each respective league. the title Conference Finals is a general term that collectively describes the six conference finals in the three respective leagues. Conference finals is intrinsically a descriptive noun phase - a final played by a conference, of which six are being referred to by the title. Conference finals does not refer to a particular referrant. There is no reasonable argument to assert this is other than a common noun when used as a stand-alone noun phrase, especially when conference finals is explicitly down-cased for the NBA finals, one of the titles. This is especially clear from the close of Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024.
5. At Talk:NBA conference finals#Requested move 20 January 2024, the substantive argument was that: NBA Eastern Conference Final and NBA Western Conference Final "might" be capitalised as the formal name of these events, NBA Conference Finals was not a specific event, it was referred to in the plural and is a descriptive term for the two specific events; and, while it might be capitalised by the NBA, the NBA is not an independent source. There was overwhelming support for the move based on this argument and no substantive policy based argument to dispute this.
6. Having participated in the RfC, GoodDay was aware of the discussion and of the close.
7. While there are two different leagues being considered, the conditions giving rise to the substantive arguments at NBA clearly apply. If there is good reason to believe that the result of an RM for these two leagues would be different from NBA in the light of the NBA RM, then this should have been given. No RM was held is not a good reason of itself. It falls to I don't like it.
8. Without good reason to believe that an RM might reasonably result in retaining capitalisation, then the action of requiring an RM just for the sake of process is just wasting everybody's time. It can reasonably be seen as Wikilawyering, pettifogging, making a point or stonewalling (all with Wiki links), which are all examples of disruptive editing and/or editing in bad faith. This can also reasonably be described as obstructionist.

Consequently, it is reasonable to raise the issue of such behaviour, especially in the case of the disambigation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• What is is about MOS CAPS issues that lends itself to editors discussing matters in wall of text? No wonder this disruptive behavior never goes to ArbCom. Who has the time to weed though paragraphs worth of text to address it? As I mentioned in the close review a few days ago, the community is encouraging this disruptive behaviour. Nemov (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if a word limit of say 100 words per person per comment in all discussions about MOS:CAPS would help? Any comments longer than that would simply be truncated with sanctions for gaming it. If we don't so something to rein in the length and incivility of these discussions it will end up at arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a bad idea. Anything we can do to reduce the number issue regarding this topic would be helpful. Nemov (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Given the contentious nature of those discussions, and the toxic atmosphere MOS discussions currently have, I'd absolutely support a limit to the number of replies and/or words. The sections for the 3 MOS related discussions at AN right now total over 177kb. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  When there are a lot of facts at issue (who did exactly what for what reasons, in relation to what previous edits, and under what policy, guidelines, procedural rules, etc., etc.), then posts like Cinderella157's are necessarily going to be detailed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: I'm quite concerned by the logic presented in this argument. The NBA discussion ABSOLUTELY does not apply to other leagues, especially those in different sports, and Dicklyon KNOWS this based on a litany of past discussions related to downcasing "Final" to "final". Otherwise every single page with "Final" in it would have been downcased by now and that's just not how it works. I find it quite peculiar that you, also being very experienced in MOS related discussions, are trying to make this argument. GoodDay is under no obligation to start an RM after protesting against an article being moved. Especially when Dicklyon started the last RM discussion a year ago to the day, which ended in no consensus. To be blunt, this is starting to come off as a group of MOS enthusiasts targeting GoodDay. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The thing is, GoodDay doesn't have a reasonable rationale for starting such an RM, and it's entirely predictable what the result would be. Thus, there was no sensible rationale for RMTR, either. That is, there is no real controversy to settle, only a "drawn out process or else" approach which is ultimately a waste of editors' time and their patience with each other. We apply the P&G by default; exception are something that require excellent evidence or solid P&G rationale, which are clearly, demonstrably lacking behind GoodDay's resistance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  The last RM, started a year prior to the day by Dicklyon himself, ended as no consensus. That's a really bad look, even if it truly was unintentional. WP:PCM, a link I mentioned to Dicklyon I believe 4 times earlier this month, states two different criteria for when a page is likely to be controversial and this fits both of them. It states that the RM process should be used if there's any reason to believe the move would be contested, which there definitely was. This very clearly fits that criteria and it makes sense to reverse the move and have a proper discussion. We can't just CRYSTALBALL it and make the decision ourselves based on what we think the outcome will/should be if there was a past discussion on it. Further, it's pretty silly for someone of his experience, and also of Cinderella's, to suggest that an RM for a different league of a different sport would apply, they both know better. I appreciate that you didn't focus on that aspect of their argument, but I really don't believe this is the situation to be calling GoodDay's behaviour into question given the actions and the arguments being made. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I tend to agree that GoodDay's behavior was obstruction or process-mongering for its own sake, which is contrary to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:WIKILAWYER, even perhaps WP:POINT. It's entirely correct that "no RM was held" is not a rationale for move-reverting. But it doesn't seem to be worth taking some kind of action about, and it's fine that the proposal to take some kind of action closed without any. On the other hand, Dicklyon should not have been blocked for objecting to this GoodDay behavior. Is everyone here observing it was a bit problematic going to be punitively blocked now? [sigh] Tempers have run hot in this general organized-sports subject area when it comes to capitalization, and everyone should just relax and take some time off from squabbling about it (and, administratively, from severe and one-sided overreaction to people squabbling about it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  But an RM was held, a year prior to the very day, by Dicklyon himself and it ended in no consensus. I also fail to see how this is a general issue with sports related editors, but I don't think that's a discussion for this venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere except creating more wall of text nonsense. Close it up or start handing out topic bans. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

Responding to Hey man im josh, where I have been explicitly mentioned and also pinged. GoodDay challenged three moves. In which only one had been subject to a previous RM. I acknowledged this in my first numbered point and that the challenge was consistent with the advice at WP:RM#CM. An argument made as if NHL conference finals were the only consideration is attacking the strawman. Furthermore, whether one can challenge a move is not the same as whether one should. The substantive case at the RM for downcasing NBA conference finals (plural) is that there are an NBA Eastern Conference Final and an NBA Western Conference Final. The NHL and KHL are identical in this, the material respect. The actual game played by the NBA had no bearing whatsoever on that RM nor will it in respect to these other leagues. Could someone reasonably disagree with the move [emphasis added]? Reasonableness is a reflection upon the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. It is one thing to oppose a move, citing reasonable reasons to disagree with it. It is unreasonable to oppose a move just because one can. Citing WP:CRYSTAL is a misuse of that link. It would deny the intelligence of editors (and humans more generally) to learn through experience. GoodDay's behaviour is directly related to the observation of being obstructionist and hence this AN section. It is perfectly reasonable to examine their conduct here and reflect upon it in the fuller discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, just drop it, because the more you try to argue that an unrelated RM applies, the worse it actually looks. Tell me why we need more than one RM and every page with "final" has not already been downcased then. GoodDay was not unreasonable in protesting a move, they have every right to do so and Dicklyon is competent enough to know there was GOING to be pushback or he shouldn't be moving pages at all. He's been making these moves for 10 years.

The move was contested, you don't get to harass someone for contesting it. You're being unreasonable by not dropping the stick and you need to recognize that. Go through the process, be an adult, don't respond to closed chats to further try to push for actions against someone. This easily could have been said on my talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Please move away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Closure

I already endorsed the original block, so I probably shouldn't be the one to close it. But we're clearly circling the drain here, and it seems obvious that nothing productive will happen here. Can an uninvolved admin please close this so we can all move on? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Community expectations around Autopatrolled Rights: Aciram

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 do not intend to request a revocation of the autopatrolled flag yet because I have had not the time to take a detailed look but Aciram, an editor who has been auto-patrolled for over a decade, is writing articles like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I wish to know if these samples satisfy the current standards governing the grant of the flag. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No, probably not. But I would like to note here, that it appears that Aciram was just automatically given Autopatrolled rights because they were on a bot whitelist. They don't appear to have ever asked for this, and don't appear to have ever been told it happened, and don't appear to have ever been told there are heightened expectations that go with autopatrolled (I did a slightly cursory review, I'll strike out anything that isn't correct, but I think this is accurate). So from their point of view, they're just sitting there minding their own business, doing the same they've always done (which is contributing over 100,000+ edits to WP), and then with no warning get reported at AN fairly brusquely. Frankly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bots grant autopatrolled? I did not know of that; sorry such being the case. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it appears (again, not 100% sure) they were on a bot whitelist, and an admin came along when that whitelist got phased out and just granted autopatrolled. Things worked differently 15 years ago. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - will keep this in mind! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam So, three editors (including two admins) told them in no uncertain terms that he needs to cite page-numbers when citing books. Well, he is still not citing them as my examples show. I am sure we can find more in the t/p archives. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If this thread is going to become "list of things Aciram does that I don't like", let's be honest about the thread title. If you want to pester them into quitting, I can't stop you, but I don't understand this (widespread! by many, many other editors! In fact, two I hold in very high esteem in that link! In fact, I've probably done this a lot myself!) desire to find something someone is doing wrong, and then pick at it until they get pissed off. Instead of saying "oh well, that didn't work, I'll go try to solve one of the 60,000,000 (conservatively) other problems WP has". This is replying to you, but it's not directed at you, because many more people seem to agree with you than agree with me. Wikipedia is really good at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is surprising, based on how it started out, with a philosophy of "i'll incrementally improve, and then someone else will incrementally improve somemore". I'm just not convinced a good faith, 100,000+ edit, productive editor needs to be pestered because they aren't perfect. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

it's not directed at you - I know that; no issues! But citation practices is a component of autopatrolled; so, perhaps not a random list of things :-) That said, I think productivity must not come at the cost of quality. For example most of the content at Margaret Frances Wheeler is not found in the book (w/o page numbers but p. 147-148) cited by Aciram. So, the cost of cleaning up is too huge — one needs to find out the page numbers, then see the portions which are sourced, then check if the unsourced parts can be sourced, and ... TrangaBellam (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Aciram has said on their talk page they have no objection to removing the autopatrolled flag, so I've done so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (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.

#wikid

Anyone know what this is? Don't see it here or HD/Teahouse. It's in my TL on Elizabeth Diller by Mdlawton11 Nothing wrong with the edit, just flagging for awareness and insight as some of these end up being complex, especially w/r/t BLPs. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That sort of thing often indicates to me a project of some kind though I can’t identify it offhand. I see there are three new editors on that page, I’ll drop welcome messages on their talk pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. See also [42]. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red may know. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Super helpful tool. I'll drop a note there. Star Mississippi 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this relates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See also User:Loriannbrown. There's a pattern of constructive edits each year, around International Women's Day, mostly from editors who sadly make no other edits. PamD 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It is our global effort to write more women architects into wikipedia. and yes, we are slow and not as active as we hope to be. do not give up on us...slowly we make progress. Loriannbrown (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I love this idea. I haven't written about as many women architects as I should have, but I'm up for doing more. We need more like Elizabeth Diller (and not because I started it) and Jeanne Gang. Might get me to write Claire Weisz this month. Thanks for your work @Loriannbrown Star Mississippi 02:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Loriannbrown Given that IDs with hashcodes don't really work within Wikipedia, it might be more useful to include WP:WikiD in the edit summary and/or add a talk page banner, to publicise the project (and avoid future puzzlement as shown above). (WP:Wikid was pointing to a 2017 page until I redirected it to the main page just now, and I created the form WP:WikiD to point there too). PamD 07:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@PamD The hashtag is there so you can use https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ to search for all the edits made as part of this Edit-a-thon. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ok. we can do that instead. when we began in 2015, the # worked. i appreciate your help. Loriannbrown (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Block request

Why isn't there a link on the words "Block requests" above. I can't figure out how to get an IP blocked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Because blocking can be requested via different venues me thinks; see Wikipedia:BLOCKREQUESTS. Lectonar (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Those words should be linked to that link.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. It should be linked. "page protection" and "deletion requests" are both linked in that sentence. I would fix this myself but I cannot find the template to edit it. EDIT: I found and wikilinked it. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Lock 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.

---

Hello, Can somebody please lock the page for Fauja Singh? Constant back and forth vandalism and reverting between registered users and an ever changing IP. I don't think blocking the IP in question will sort anything so upping the page security is probably the best tact. Thanks! 89.240.73.254 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for 2 days. IP89, thanks for the report, and please use WP:RFPP for future requests of this type. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (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 deleted deletion proposal with no authority

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.

---

Article in question https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Haim_Gozali&oldid=1212614648

the editor didn't agree about the proposal, instead of voting about it he just deleted the proposal altogether. That editor isn't an admin or moderator as far as I see 85.65.201.231 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

PROD nominations can be removed by anyone, for any reason. I see nothing wrong with that edit. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." This one has an AfD prior. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (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

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.

---

@Vito Genovese is not active anywhere, including the local wiki, and he doesn't seem to need IP block exempt anymore. 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And it no longer requires reviewer rights. 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From time to time we clean certain old permissions up. It is a process that takes a while, and some requires rounds of notification. Unless there is misuse occurring, third party removal requests are generally only entertained in the more 'required' cases (like admins, intadmins, crats, and bots) or for special situations like deceased users. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. So I ask again, IP user, what is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'm interested in is removing the rights of inactive users and paving the way for new users. 149.140.112.51 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (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.

Requesting Block Review

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.

---

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

I have blocked the above IP x 31 hrs for disruptive editing following a wave of unexplained reverts (no edit summaries) and rapid fire issuance of various levels of warnings to users both registered, and IPs. Their activities tripped the edit filter which was what alerted me to the issue. They were also deleting messages on their own talk page w/o reply. However, they are insisting their activities were constructive. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting a review of their editing and my block by any experienced editors. From my perspective, rapid fire unexplained reverts coupled with all of those warnings, and their failure to respond to messages and warnings on their own talk page, was disruptive. Am I missing something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's well past midnight and I am off to bed. I will look in on this when I have a few minutes tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If Ad Orientem is missing something, than so am I. Mason (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed the edits and had similar misgivings. Behavior trumps any presumed benefits from the edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious troll, restoring obviously bad edits in the examples I saw. Likely an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I reviewed a dozen, mostly bad reverts, and the rapidity of the edits, and the overall hostile demeanor of the editor, suggest the block is quite correct, and calls for an indef, as I see it. Agree with Dennis Brown: a troll. Jusdafax (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IPs almost never get indef blocks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is Hamish Ross, see other recent(albeit account) blocks: <example1>, <example2>. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attention:_Toini_Ivanov. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, that was also Hamish Ross, per their user page tag — my examples are more recent and more obvious. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Adding, not contradicting. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a competition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (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.

Pamandersonfanclub disruptive editing on Diagolon

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

---

This user keeps changing the Diagolon page and removing valid citations. It's clear that he is biased on the topic. I have already sent him a warning and he has since continued to edit the page. Ionophore (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Stale. Ionophore, Pamandersonfanclub was warned by an admin on March 2 for vandalism (diff). Their last edit was also on March 2, so I'm unsure what you are requesting us to do now. El_C 06:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh fair fair, I must have missed that warning! No worries then. Ionophore (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (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.

Uncivil/potentially explicit edit summary

This revision [43] by 114.125.68.24 contains a potentially explicit edit summary. Per Help:Edit summary, only an admin can remove an edit summary, which is why I am requesting admin attention. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

IP used edit summary for insulting

Please hide/delete this edit summary. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's not very civil (and obviously the IP will be blocked if it continues), but we don't revdel things unless they're "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", and I don't think this rises to that level—it's just run-of-the-mill rudeness. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Strange numerical additions to articles

A series of IPs have been adding the same line of numbers ([44], [45], [46]) to articles and have been since at least February.

• 2401:BA80:AA05:6BE2:D847:87A3:2823:9123
• 2401:BA80:AA09:6D63:993E:4716:FE50:3EEE
• 2401:BA80:A102:4531:2049:1DFF:FE85:B0AA

I have no idea what the number is or why they keep doing it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No clue what's going on there, but with that wide an IP range, it sounds like a job for Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A soft block on Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:A100::/40 should stop it for now. Most all of the recent edits on that IP range are from this person. It looks like this person gets allocated a different /40 on that /32 every so often. Account creation is left on, so it shouldn't affect many people, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiblocks Wish updates

Dear admins,

Over the last few weeks we’ve been designing the user experience and user interface for the Multiblocks feature, that enables Admins to issue multiple blocks against an account (an account can be a user account, an IP, or an IP range).

Multiblocks was the #14 wish in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

After a design process and some consultation, we have published some designs of the feature. Please check them out and give feedback on the project talkpage.

Best regards, Community Tech –– STei (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

2601:205:4300:54F0

IPv6 user 2601:205:4300:54F0* (IP alias 67.166.136.47) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. User is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Rift (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to handle this appropriately, but I agree that 2601:205:4300:54F0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 67.166.136.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are related and disruptive. Both have been blocked with a recent two-week block for the IPv6 range. It looks like the main issues are WP:DE, WP:BLP violations, and poorly-sourced and unsourced edits. They have never engaged on any talk page (their single edit to a talk page was to make an edit request). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if this isn't protocol, @Daniel Quinlan, but can you take a look at this? I'm keen not to see this matter fade away without action. Rift (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie edit war

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.

---

Ever since the beginning of 2024, the page on Steamboat Willie has had the category Category:Internet memes introduced in 2024 added and removed several times. I would appreciate it if there would be a consensus for whether this page should have the category, or if a section about the meme should be added. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Talk:Steamboat_Willie#On_the_question_of_if_Steamboat_Willie_became_a_meme_in_2024, current consensus is against. You can add your view there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (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.

An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee:

Two months ago, in an unusual break from their standard procedures, the Ombuds Commission, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, allowed it to be publicly announced that they were investigating me. [56] This was how I found out I was being investigated by this body, they had not contacted me in any way. We were told they would have a result "soon". I contacted them to express my concern at this public announcement, but also to make it clear I was available to them if they had any questions. They replied with a fairly generic statement assuring me that the process would be fair. I accepted this and waited a month before contacting them again, simply to ask, since they chose to make a public announcement, if they could just give me even the vaguest idea of when "soon" was actually going to be. That was a month ago, and I have received no reply of any kind from them.

I'd like anyone reading this to consider how they would feel in my position.

I have not been told what evidence they are considering. I have not been told what I could have done to violate the access to nonpublic data policy,[57] which covers personally identifying information, such as real identities or locations of specific users discovered through the use of advanced permissions in or in the course of dealing with suppressible material using the oversight tool, or IP addresses revealed by use of the checkuser tool, It is an important rule and I am not actually aware of any accusation that reasonably explains how I might have violated it. The information I shared offsite was not PII at all. I understand that the committee nonetheless felt I breached their trust. I don't agree with the hardline stance they chose to take on this but I at least understand it. I don't understand what the Ombuds even have to investigate, or why it could possibly take this long to reach a conclusion. I suppose it is also possible that they have reached a conclusion and have simply not bothered to share it with me or anyone else, despite having taken the highly unusual step of allowing one of their investigations to be publicized.

I find it ironic that a decision was made to reveal something that is usually held in the absolute strictest confidence, in response to an allegation that I had revealed something that should have been held in confidence. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to at least be told what it is I am accused of, to be given a chance to respond to those accusations, and to be given at least the vaguest suggestion of a real timeframe for when the case may be closed.

Please ArbCom, the next time you know the ombuds are investigating someone don't ask them for a public announcement.

Please, Ombuds, the next time someone asks you to make such an announcement don't do it. And don't say you will have a result soon and then sit on it for two months.

I have followed what little is public about the commission's work for many years now, and it basically never does anything quickly. Why the rush to publicize this case, when clearly you were not close to a decision?

Optics aren't everything, but they do matter. Publicly naming and shaming me without even having the courtesy to tell me first that I was even being investigated, without explaining exactly what is being investigated, without asking me a single question, and without giving any actual honest estimate of when I can expect a result is very poor behavior. Please, do better. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(The Arbitration Committee has been notified about this message.)

I personally share the above-described lack of insight into what the Ombuds Commission currently does, why it does some things and why it does them the way it does.
As far as I see, the announcement link above is in response to a public WP:ARCA request asking for oversight and VRT permissions to be restored after they had been removed for private reasons. If the information about the Ombuds investigation had been sent to you privately instead, would you really have wanted to keep it private and been fine with a prohibition on publicly mentioning it? And expected the Committee to rely on this after the suspension?

Because from my point of view, there were two ways to deal with the information received from the Ombuds Commission: a) keep private or b) inform you publicly about it. The latter required additional permission I personally find reasonable to request in that situation.

Asked differently: Would you have preferred being silently investigated by the Ombuds Commission without even knowing about it? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear JSS didn't notify us of an open letter to us which I admit I find strange. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is... open  :)
But, more seriously, he probably assumed that, considering the alacrity with which arbs, crats and admins were crawling all over this very page not so long ago, that there was no need to... ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When I've been a part of open letters I've not made assumptions that the people I want to read it will read it. I've instead either sent them the letter directly - as one normally does with letters - or pointed them to it directly. :shrug: Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that if they were looking into your actions, they would inform you privately so you could at least attempt to explain yourself. So what I would have preferred is that. To find out there was an ongoing investigation and to be told it was nearly concluded before I even became aware of it was certainly not how I thought it worked, or how it should work.

And now it is two months later and I know no more than anyone else about what they are investigating and when they will have a result. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't think that Ombuds reaches out to people it's investigating. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The way I got that impression was from asking a much more experienced arbitrator, but now that I think about it that conversation was at least a decade ago, so perhaps they have changed their internal procedures, which are an absolute black box. Except when they want to make a huge exception and tell the whole world. When they do one thing as opposed to the other is also about as transparent as piece of plywood. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else, likely the fact that Arbcom didn't tell him OS revocation was being considered. What happened here is bound to cause hurt that won't go away in a few months. I also think JSS has a point. Having someone in limbo with no attempt to communicate or update for this length of time is unfair to him. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was already aggrieved about that, but I accept the rejection of my attempt to have it amended. That's just it, I'm not interested in dwelling on it, I'd prefer to just move on but I feel like there's this threat at any moment I might be subject to even more serious sanctions without even being told why. That kind of treatment is usually reserved for the worst kind of trolls and long-term abusers, I never expected to find myself being the subject of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 your first sentence is beneath you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If any other editor wrote an "open letter to arbcom" and posted it at AN it would be closed so fast. This is not what this page is for, so I am closing this. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Original close
Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)}}

I've reverted the closure and copied the closing reason above. Issues of accountability, project-wide and inter-wiki governance definitely fall within "of interest to administrators" and this is the most central location to discuss it. It seems there are legitimate questions here regarding how the Ombudsman Commission operates, and stifling discussion that isn't disruptive is a bad look. Especially in a thread asking for greater transparency. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I...don't know. Reading through meta:OMBCOM I'm not entirely sure we have *any* direct means of recourse for their actions or how they conduct their business. As far as I can tell, they're only accountable to the board of trustees. What exactly can be achieved from this discussion, aside from perhaps a statement of solidarity if there's a consensus for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? This is a discussion for the pump, or a page about ombuds or arbcom, or meta. But this is not something concerns enwiki admins, who have no role here. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If I were an admin, or rather when I become one, I would like to know that I too could be put in such a situation if I were to apply and be accepted for CU/OS. Ombuds dont investigate users without advanced permissions as far as I know, so I dont think it's quite general readership worthy, but really who cares where this is? nableezy - 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was inappropriate to post this to a page unknown to the general editing public, to a page unwatched by non-admins, where only admins can comment and/or close a thread. Oh, wait... Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Straw man, floq. If beebs wanted the most eyes, it'd have been at the pump. If he wants the most sympathetic ears, this is the place. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Far more people (and I'd wager a substantial amount also far more non-admins) watch this page than any applicable village pump page. I'm not sure you understand what straw man means; in this case, it directly addressed your false premise. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We both know what straw man means. to a page unknown to the general editing public was a straw man -- I didn't say this page was unknown to the general editing public. to a page unwatched by non-admins is another one; I didn't say this page was unwatched by non-admins. where only admins can comment and/or close a thread a third one -- you just made those three up, and then argued against them. directly addressed your false premise No, actually, it didn't. Here, let me repeat my premise for you:

Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump.

Notice how that doesn't say anything about this page being unknown, unwatched, or only admins being able to comment and/or close a thread.

This lesson was free but next time I teach you, I'll have to charge. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? That sounds as if you are saying this discussion is not for the general editing public. Also, I don't agree that the pump is place to get the most eyes. More people will see this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, I stand corrected, more eyes are here not there. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to beat this drum again, it should be Administration noticeboard, not Administrator's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ths actually is worth a proper discusson! (And, hopefully, validation.) +1 ——Serial Number 54129 17:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me like this is probably a discussion to be held at meta:Talk:Ombuds commission, or somewhere else on meta, with a notice or two at a relevant venue rather than a discussion for anywhere specific on enwiki. Just so it's clear, I'm not being dismissive of what JSS is saying. I'd also be concerned about a body saying they're investigating someone without giving feedback on the process to the person they're investigating. But I just don't think it's anything that we can resolve here on enwiki, because that body isn't accountable to us in the same way that local administrators, CU/OS, or ArbCom are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So, I did contemplate where to post this, and considered mutliple options, and ultimately decided this was the right place. Posting on the talk page of the ombuds is something I have already tried, they have never replied to any of my posts there. As this is not soleley, or even mostly, about ArbCom it didn't make sene to me to post it there either. Whether I made the correct decision ro not, I think since the arbs started responding here it makes sense to leave it here regardless. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have the authority to force the Ombudsman Commission to do anything but open, public discussions like this have historically been a good way to draw attention to Foundation-level issues and get answers from the WMF. There probably isn't much the OC can say given the obvious privacy issues, but they might be able to clarify their process and give a better answer than "Soon". According to the most recent (but outdated) database report, this is the 19th most watchlisted page. If you ignore the ones that are only there because of an ancient bug, it falls inside the top 10. Shutting it down within a few hours gives the impression that we're trying to sweep it under the rug or cover up a transparency issue, which we shouldn't. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with JSS that the slow movement of the OC is not reassuring. The OC's glacial pace makes ArbCom look like a racecar by comparison (and I wouldn't accuse us of being particularly fast either). As for the substantive issue of notice, I am glad that the OC at least mentioned its investigation. I think the alternative, in which JSS could have been blindsided by a sudden OC finding would have, at least if I were in JSS's position, been even more disconcerting and distressing. I take general issue at the OC's lack of transparency and responsiveness. I do not however find the OC's disclosure ironic: we asked the OC if such information could be revealed. JSS did not ask when he revealed what he did. There is the key difference, which is what sets his conduct apart. Though, for what it is worth, I do not believe that JSS should receive sanctions from the OC; based on the severity of the actions, the appropriate action here was to remove him from the Committee, not to put an eternal black mark on him. As to the public nature of the notice, I think I would be content with the OC not mentioning investigations publicly so long as it was actually being communicative with the person they were investigating. There is a silver lining here: had the OC not revealed it was investigating JSS, we would not have been able to see just how slow and unresponsive the OC is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support the reopening, and the call for an answer, even if one will be forthcoming. I think here makes more sense than the VP/WMF which while might be the right "audience" doesn't have the same level of eyes. Regardless of whether an investigation is merited, an editor (any, but especially one of @Just Step Sideways' tenure) deserves more information than what has been forthcoming. We saw this with WP:FRAM and nothing appears to have improved in the interim. Star Mississippi 22:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• um something I think my issue is twofold. Firstly that justice should be swift and secondly it should be seen to be done fairly. Unending opaque investigations are inherently unjust and unfair. For the OC to admit their investigation publicly they have an obligation to deliver a swift and fair outcome. Instead we are left with the worst of mixed metaphors. A scarlet letter imposed as part of a interminable Kafkaesque Trial where the only thing the accused knows is there is a process. The arbcom were shockingly high handed when they rushed through their original decision and in so doing were harsh and uncaring to a colleague. This didn’t allow themselves time to get the coms right and cover off the unintended consequences like JSS’ OS permissions and this is the root cause of the manifestly unfair situation JSS has fallen into. I don’t believe that the committee intended this in anyway and that their aim was in part to do the swift and transparent thing but they have created a real human price from what at the time felt like a bit of performative politics. I hope the current committee reflects on this.Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at their recent reports, it seems investigations often take about 3-6 months Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Nov-Jan, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Aug-Oct, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report May-Jul, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Feb-Apr, Meta:Ombuds commission/2022/Report Nov-Jan. So whatever the wisdom or fairness of this time frame, or of announcing their were investigating, saying there will be a result soon etc; it seems that the outcome here was fairly expected. While I appreciate soon can mean different things in different circumstances, perhaps at a minimum the commission should have said something like 'investigations often take 3-6 months'? Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• In the extraordinary situation where we decide to publicly announce that a named person is being investigated by the Ombuds Commission, that person should be informed of the announcement in advance. This shouldn't be a rule because it shouldn't need to be a rule. Everyone involved has been through a selection process that tests their judgment and discretion. That ought to obviate the need to explain what is, frankly, bloody obvious. An apology is in order, and a prompt one at that.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• It's the most common of bloody courtesies, whether or not you are a Wikipedian or anybody who works in any sort of professional capacity in the real world, to notify someone well in advance before announcing to the world that your star chamber is investigating someone for whatever high crimes or misdemeanors they've committed. Giving notice is a concept that has been around for as long as common law. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• (Speaking in an individual capacity) I think that it's important to note that the decision to publicise the Ombuds' investigation was taken by a Committee member alone, rather than a decision by the Committee as a whole. I was unfortunately inactive for JSS's appeal, but I'm not sure that I would've taken that decision (though I understand the transparency rationale). I'm sorry that JSS has been held in limbo for all this while, and hope that it will be resolved soon – I don't have any particular insights into how the Commission has been conducting their investigation and my guess is as good as anyone's in this instance. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Um.. that's actually shocking as the actual announcement refers to "we" not I. Given the context and the statement that this was an individual action was the OC misled when they agreed to allow an announcement? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  @L235 would you care to comment please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the note. Five members of the committee (including myself) informally concurred in the decision to inform the community about the ongoing Ombuds case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've now read a bit more of this discussion and can elaborate. I'm sorry for the anguish that I've clearly caused JSS here. That wasn't my intention. At the time, my thinking was that it might make sense to hold off on addressing the merits of JSS's request because we were told that a resolution in the Ombuds case would be coming soon. It would be particularly awkward for the committee to, for example, grant back the permissions and then have them swiftly re-revoked by Ombuds action, so it seemed to be best to hold off on addressing the substantive merits of JSS's request until the Ombuds had rendered its decision, whichever way it'd come down. However, we couldn't really do that without saying that the Ombuds had told us that a decision was on the way soon. With the benefit of hindsight, the request was decided fairly quickly on the substantive merits, and so this was unnecessary. But at the time, most arbs hadn't voiced a substantive opinion, and the disclosure seemed like a natural step. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Correct me but 5 isnt a majority right? The conversation appears to have excluded some arbs, so how many were actually involved and how many were excluded. Also was the referral to the OC an individual or minority action or was the referral agreed as a formal arbcom action? @L235 Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So a member of the committee revealed committee communications without the approval of the committee? Sounds familiar, somehow... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do want to clarify that once the Ombuds Commission gave the okay for disclosure, there was a discussion prior to it being disclosed and that I took part in that discussion and explicitly agreed to share that information. Whether disclosing it that way was the right call or not I don't think is up to me, but I don't want it to seem like it was a decision made solely by KevinL or that it wasn't discussed beforehand. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  This must be confusing for people not on the Committee, so I've been told that it was a discussion not on the mailing list, so not all members were aware of the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I, too, have agreed to share that information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So were you aware that some of the arbs were excluded from the conversation and does that bother you in any way? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't think much about the location and don't necessarily have to when stating my opinion about a topic. When I say I'm fine with something being published, I can do so in any conversation including a private conversation between two people. Whether the amount of such statements is sufficient for a specific piece of information to be published isn't something I had to evaluate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very political answer and to say you have no responsibility when your assent is being used to justify the addition of a scarlet letter on an editor seems .. um.. well not reflecting well on your character. Maybe I'm being unfair but every answer I have had on this subject has made me more alarmed not less. Is not giving a shit about process and fairness really the bridge you want to build your legacy on? @Aoidh interested in your observations too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  At the time I did not consider the fact that not all of the arbs were able to see that discussion (though the email to and from OmbCom was on the mailing list). With the benefit of hindsight I think an email to the list summarizing the discussion and decision would have been warranted, and ideally a holding period where arbs could have time to disagree with posting it, given the atypical circumstances. That I didn't suggest that is on me and is something I will be mindful of moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh that's a better more reassuring answer. I still have questions outstanding about the OC referral. Was the referral to OC agreed by the whole committee and did the whole committee agreed to ask the OC if they could publicise their investigation? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have every intention of being transparent about my own actions as much as possible, but I am concerned that answering that question in a satisfactory way may run afoul of point #4 of WP:ARBCOND. I'm not trying to avoid the question, but I want to make sure it's answered appropriately. I'm going to ask about this on the ArbCom list. - Aoidh (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  # 4 relates to confidential correspondence received by the committee not correspondence sent by the committee. But per Barkeep this referral wasn't an arbcom action but an individual action. Should I take it that arbcom did not ask the OC if they could release the fact of the investigation.?

  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We were meaning different things by referral. I thought you meant initiating the investigation, not the fact that the investigation existed, whose facts have been discussed earlier. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  But the referral wasn't an act of the committee? Is that right. I expanded on my query below Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was more specifically referring to the ...and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations since the answer to those two questions directly involves internal discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  But this apparently wasn’t discussed by the committee? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  An internal discussion did take place, though as I said above with the benefit of hindsight it could have been handled better on my part. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone can ask the Ombuds to take up a matter and I know in at least some enwiki matters more than one Arb submitted a request to the Ombuds. In this case I don't see any Arb cc'ing the list with any kind of report (though I could be missing it) so it seems like there was no committee "referral"? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  If I parse your answer this wasn't a referral put forward by you and that the referral wasn't discussed by the committee. Presumably then the committee did not request permission to release the fact of the investigation and the decision to release this information does not appear to be an approproately constituted decision where all in scope arbs could contribute. Am I being unfair or does this chain of logic reflect what happened? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  What are you calling a referral? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reporting the matter to the OC as a potential investigation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am can make some informed speculation about how JSS was reported in November but I don't know. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how did it come about that OC were asked if the committee could publicise the fact than an investigate started? Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: I'm not looking at my email right now, but my memory is that the OC's chair decided, without any prompting from ArbCom, to tell us that there was an open investigation. When we were informed they were asked if ArbCom could pass that information along to the community. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Spartaz I think Kevin addressed it above. It seems some arbs thought the OC might have made a decision quicker and were worried that the ARCA request might undermine that decision (if, for example, we decided to give JSS's oversight permissions back and the OC decided a few days later to yank them). As it happened the incoming arbs (including me) were of a similar mind to last year's committee and that was a bit of a moot point. I don't think anyone meant to tarnish JSS by revealing the fact of the OC investigation (I hadn't realised until this thread that ARCA was the first time it became known). I apologise to @Just Step Sideways for the undue stress that caused. In hindsight, it's clear that no decision was imminent and it wasn't material to the ARCA request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. isn't correct? I see that I had addressed it, L235 had addressed it, Aoidh had addressed it, and ToBeFree had addressed. HJ Mitchell has now since addressed it. I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• It has been pretty obvious to me all along — having followed what you actually did post on WPO — that there was no merit whatsoever to this "investigation" or to their ridiculous action against you and that your "colleagues" at ArbCom were in a mad rush to kick you in the teeth before the clock ran out on their current term. Good for you for lighting a fire under their butts to put up or apologize. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Endorsed, with added firelighters. ——Serial Number 54129 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• On Feb 24 2024, arbitrator Primefac stated the following on this noticeboard (unstricken): And if I hadn't used those words you'd find something else to complain about (diff). On March 7 2024, arbitrator Barkeep49 stated the following also on this noticeboard (stricken): I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else (diff). Bold is my emphasis. So if I hadn't quoted these two seemingly disparate statements by these two arbitrators, I'd find something else to complain about? (Rhetorical: the answer is nyes, OT, goodbye.) El_C 06:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • To be preemptively clear, in my edit summary for the above, which read: non-random spotlight: a couple of arbitrators, a couple of chronic complainers? (diff), the purported "chronic complainers" are meant to represent those subject to the ire of the aforementioned "couple of arbitrators," not those two arbs themselves (i.e. I realize that my word ~flow was a bit meh). El_C 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest that the five ArbCom members who agreed to publicise the information regarding the investigation (including L235, Aoidh and ToBeFree) check in with the Ombuds Commission on the status of the investigation and then update JSS and the community with the Ombuds Commission response (or lack of a response, perhaps at the one week, two week and one month stage). starship.paint (RUN) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I have sent an email on behalf of the Arbitration Committee asking the Ombuds Commission to comment here regarding this matter. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate that, but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Aoidh. starship.paint (RUN) 09:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• In my view JSS/Beeb was right to bring this here. Doubtless there are further issues I’m unaware of, possibly grave and deep, but at this time the raw facts presented in the open letter are remarkable, and the feeling this matter gives me is one of unease and dismay. A full disclosure and apology seem in order for starters, and possibly if others share my concern, an independent investigation into this case to clarify and make transparent what the rationale is. Two months of secret proceedings seems an outrageous chilling effect. Who will watch the watchers? Jusdafax (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  If the OC was done in two months it would be something of a speed record for them. They are glacial slow in the best of times. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes as I mentioned above, whether right or wrong the speed of OC proceedings is one thing that isn't a secret, effectively their quarterly reports tell us that 3-6 months proceedings are very common. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's kind of my point. I am fully aware that two months would be very quick for them, and they should obviously also be aware of that, so why did they approve a public statement saying they would have a result soon? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• What has this got to do with building an encyclopedia? Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  quite a bit. Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how. Seems more like an overblown sense of self-importance from all parties which actually gets in the way of the process of building an encyclopedia, rather than contributing to it. I suppose that can be said of a lot of stuff that gets posted to the drama boards. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Ombuds Commission cannot comment on cases publicly. We have sent an email to JSS with an update. Thank you, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  yep, you sure did, you sent me an email, finally, saying that you usually do take forever to decide anything and explaning why that is, but not addressing my actual concerns at all. I'm sending you all an email back, but I'm also copying it here:

  "I'm aware you guys take forever to decide anything, everyone knows that, I don't need it explained to me, what I'd like to see an explanation of is why I was not even informed this was happening, and why you let the whole world know about it before saying a single to thing to me, and why you let them say you would have a result soon, when you knew that was false.

  So, maybe in the future, don't allow a public announcement that you are doing an investigation and will have a result soon, when you know perfectly well that you won't have a result soon and that normally everything you do is kept confidential. That's the issue here, I found out I was being investigated when you let arbcom announce it, and even right now, I don't actually know what actions of mine you are investigating. I assume it's the same stuff the en.wp arbcom was upset about but it is entirely opaque to me how it is even a matter for the commission to be investigating as there is not any credible accusation that I am aware of that I misused advanced permissions or revealed actual personal information of any kind. " Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to make a change to CSD:G5

• I have started a discussion on the CSD talk page regarding non-EC editors creating articles that fall under EC restrictions. Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Floating_an_idea_about_G5._Creations_by_banned_or_blocked_users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way

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.

---

WP:REFACTOR explains the refactoring policy for talk pages.

I want to refactor talk pages, and I tried once.

Acroterion reversed my edits and communicated to me that I was not to do so going forward.

My issues with this are:

1. My edits were intended to meet WP:REFACTOR’s policies, so even if they failed to, Acroterion could have explained which aspect of WP:REFACTOR my edits violated.

2. I believe that my edits can be interpreted as meeting the policy of WP:REFACTOR, but I am completely open to hearing people’s views on why they didn’t. I expect there to be subjectivity in that decision. Acroterion had no such discussions with me. Instead, they more or less commanded me to stop, on threat of being blocked. After two requests, they have still not explained why my edits are not in accordance with the policy stated at WP:Refactor. They have also told me that I am not to edit talk pages, ever - not even minor grammar corrections. **They are using their stature as an administrator to assert what Wikipedia rules are, using their power to block when their claims are disputed, and do not answer the question of why their prescriptions are different from WP:Refactor**.

3. They aren’t kind, helpful, cooperative, transparent, or open. They don’t have good faith. They could have explained politely why Wikipedia policy doesn’t allow the edits I made. It has taken some amount of effort on my part just to have them engage with me and answer my questions.

4. They are misusing their power to block. If I had not drawn attention to this case and maybe tried to go around Acroterion, for all I know, I would be banned from Wikipedia right now. This is a bad power imbalance, to give someone the ability to ban, if they use it as a threat at the slightest whim, **including mandating their own editorial policies that are different from Wikipedia’s, and evading acknowledgment that their claimed rules are not corroborated in Wikipedia policy pages.** It seems like they have gotten too comfortable in their position and think they can eschew Wikipedia policy without anyone taking notice.

This admin has gone rogue. **They are not following Wikipedia policy**. Their ability to ban users should be revoked, so that I can try to refactor talk pages without fear of being banned. There should be other penalties against them for failing to uphold good conduct as a longtime admin that should know better: deviating from Wikipedia policy and trying to intimidate newcomers who they think don’t know any better should not be acceptable.

I am looking for explicit confirmation from other admins of the following points:

1. Refactoring is allowed. 2. Acroterion said it wasn’t. 3. Acroterion did not answer the first request to know why refactoring was not allowed. 4. Acroterion did not answer the second request about why refactoring is not allowed if WP:Refactor says it is. 5. Acroterion threatened to block me the next time I made a refactoring edit. 6. Acroterion is a longtime admin. 7. Acroterion told me that I wasn’t allowed to do certain things which I am. 8. Acroterion acted like he was an authority and that I was obligated to comply with his statements. 9. Acroterion’s statements were false.

I would like these propositions to be put on the table before further discussion.

User:Acroterion

User talk:Julkhamil Julkhamil (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You are not entitled to correct other editors' grammar or to change other editors' comments in any way, with very limited exceptions that don't apply to your edits. I've explained this to you repeatedly. And yes, if you do any of that again, I will block your for disruption.

The edits in question were done with another account, Juliushamilton100 (talk · contribs) [58] [59] [60] [61] None of those edits are appropriate. Don't fuss with other editors' comments. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This post displays astonishingly poor judgment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this [62] appears the be the refactoring that led to the dispute (Juliushamilton100 is Julkhamil's alternative account). And you don't need to be an admin (I'm not) to understand why editing other peoples posts like that is grossly improper. There is absolutely nothing in WP:REFACTOR that even remotely suggests that it was appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:TPO. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to follow what JCW555 said by pointing out that WP:REFACTOR, which you keep quoting as policy, is not the policy. At the top of the page it conspicuously points to WP:TPO as the policy, which is the actual guideline. I think if you read it you'll see that it's pretty clear. As a general piece of advice, if you can't distinguish policies from guidelines from how-to pages, it pays to listen to others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. I blocked his other account, User:Juliushamilton100 as a housekeeping measure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 15 March 2024 (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.

Unpleasant behaviour

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 anonymous user (42.200.20.68) repeatedly threatened other anonymous users with account blocking for no clear reason. This user accused edits made by other users as vandalism, notifying the alleged vandalism on the accused user's page, but when reversing the edit, did not include the reason that he considered the edit he was reversing as vandalism. Natsuikomin (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This anonymous user may allegedly use another ip address (212.77.220.109) to threaten me after 42.200.20.68 was getting blocked. You can see here that this user gave a threat-like message to me by mentioning my edit on WP:AN, it's likely to refer to this edit. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Natsuikomin, Why on earth are you following this IP around leaving unpleasant, mocking messages on their talk pages [63] [64]? What on earth were you expecting messages like those to accomplish? Looking through your history of contributions it seems like you have been warned once about this kind of behaviour [65] following this message [66]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting blocked twice or thrice or even more is crazy, better cry at home. Natsuikomin (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Why are you responding to me pointing out your inappropriate, uncivil comments with more inappropriate uncivil comments? I'm not a vandal - even the most cursory glance at my contributions would show that I've been editing as an IP address for years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Cry, bye. Natsuikomin (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm seriously starting to think that there's a WP:CIR issue at play here. Can you seriously not tell the difference between a vandal and a long term IP editor? Do you not see why messages like the ones you left on the IP's talk page and the ones you left above are inappropriate? If you want to be involved in vandal fighting you need the maturity to conduct yourself properly when interacting with vandals. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Bang, coba baca buku "Introduction to Algorithms". Itu buku untuk memahami algoritma di dalam ilmu pemrograman. Mungkin bisa dipakai untuk meningkatkan kualitas berpikir Anda. Oh iya, ini yg terakhir ya bang, jangan menangis terlalu lama, nanti bengkak. Good bye. Natsuikomin (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read, instead of a book, Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Why personal attacks are harmful which says, among other things, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user.[..]".

And to be clear, the 86. IP that you are currently being uncivil to is clearly not a vandal and clearly not the same person as the IP you opened this section for, your harassment still wouldn't have been right even if they were. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It didn't resolve any issue here, I'll be the first to stop worsening the matter, thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

deepl translate:

"mate, try reading the book "introduction to algorithms". it's a book to understand algorithms in programming science. maybe it can be used to improve the quality of your thinking. by the way, this is the last one, don't cry too long, it will get better." ltbdl (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong, sorry. I'll stop making uncivil comments here. This reply is also for you, @Czello. Once again, sorry. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no comment on the IP or the situation preceding this thread, but Natsuikomin I do agree with the above comment that you're being needlessly uncivil here. Please don't WP:GRAVEDANCE — Czello ^(music) 10:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hold up, I have reverted one of my two uncivil edits on the page because considering it unnecessary. Why did you mention it again? Natsuikomin (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it is still a completely unacceptable comment to make towards another user, even if you removed it 10 hours later? Because the very next edit you made after removing the comment was to post almost the exact same thing again on another talk page - removing incivility in order to "apologise" looses its meaning if you instantly say it again!

I also find it troubling that you're apologising for making these comments towards me above, while on your talk page claiming that they were OK to make because you wanted to shut me up. You are also accusing the admins who've warned warned you about these comments of being disruptive for telling you not to say them [67]? I repeat my claim above, I think there is a WP:CIR issue here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not answering, and you just make this issue bigger. I'll be the first to stop continuing this useless discussion here, then you. Have a nice day. Natsuikomin (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

One more comment, you said that I consider the attacks OK because I wanted to shut you up. You are wrong, I was referring to the person who has been blocked twice, and I thought you're the same person. If you really ain't the blocked person, then it wasn't addressed to you. Again, stop making this issue bigger. Natsuikomin (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2024 (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.

Duplicate article creations

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.

---

Dragisdr20 created and submitted Draft:Yerragundla. Because the article already exists, I declined and wrote them they should improve the and merge into the existing article instead of creating a duplicate. Without explaining why and without improving the draft, they did resubmit the article which got declined again. After a third submit and decline of the draft, I wrote them that they should stop submitting a draft for an already existing article.

I didn't got a response but instead they moved an other draft for the same village, Draft:Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal to the main space that was declined multiple times too and finally moved back to draft space by Significa liberdade.

While I welcome their willingness to help, this practice just creates a lot of work for the reviewers. I don't understand the intention of creating articles that already exist and why they don't respond to messages, but that doesn't seem good practice to me.

I want to ask Dragisdr20 to stop doing this and have an administrator take a look at it. Thank you. Killarnee (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the article like user page User:Dragisdr20 seems like WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Userpage appears to have been a rough draft for Ayyaloori Subhan Ali‎--as a draft this was declined thrice then rejected, after which Dragisdr20 moved it to mainspace anyway. It is now at AfD.

As for the Yerragundla drafts, they were clearly not ready for mainspace but it was less clear to me whether Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal was in fact about the same locality in the existing article or about a different village with a similar name. Regardless, their edits, while perhaps good faith, appear to be largely WP:CIR-noncompliant. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And again: Special:diff/1213469866 It this supposed to continue forever? Killarnee (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Dragisdr20 has been sockblocked. This can be closed now, methinks. --Finngall ^talk 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Help! need someone to close a RM in a contentious area. Reward: Girl Scout Cookies.

(...if still available at time of closing) OK, please help out, admins: Talk:Bojana (river) has an interesting move request, one that may be longer than the actual river. I know which way I'm leaning, but I'm not comfortable enough in my knowledge of naming conventions. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user

hello,

I would like to report user Paper9oll. I have been trying to correct information on the Wikipedia page of deceased artist Moonbin surrounding rumours of his death. I am providing sources from his management's official platform FanCafe in which they posted a letter from his mother correcting rumours of his death. The user in question is continuously removing my edit with my valid source included, accusing me of defaming this artist, which is simply not true. I am simply trying to correct false information listed on his Wikipedia. JKJeonEuphoria (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Your source is not reliable, JKJeonEuphoria, and this is not the right forum: you need to discuss this matter, with the editor and perhaps on the article talk page, before you post in a forum like this. Your behavior on User talk:Paper9oll is not acceptable, by the way, and I will drop a note on your talk page. I think you should try harder and read all the relevant information--there is a big fat note in this very page which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page", another big fat note which says "his noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally", and you probably should have followed the links provided to you by Paper9oll. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bakkafrost informative brand page

Bakkafrost https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bakkafrost made it's yearly update on its official Wikipedia page by User110022. Mean as custard who did not prove any industrial knowledge classified the page as "promotional" as keeps reverting to the old version, which is now factually outdated and incorrect, hence needs updating. Please review the version which was recorrected on 09:19, 13 March 2024 by User110022 and settle the argument if it classifies as promotional or not. User110022 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, it looks like you're edit-warring to insert a large amount of unsourced, promotional content. Also, your wording implies that you are editing on behalf of the company; please read WP:COI, particularly the parts that explain how to properly declare your conflict-of-interest and how to request edits to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a company employee, so I am editing on the behalf of the company. I'm happy to verify this if you could let me know the steps for that. User110022 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, verification isn't needed but a declaration by you is needed. Also, you should use the {{Edit COI}} template on Talk:Bakkafrost to request changes to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguity about fair use

Now there are several times that images I have uploaded from the Farsi wiki are first removed by a robot and then I am told by another robot that I can re-insert them. I did as I was told but the photo is removed by another robot. One can look at the history of, for example, Pervez Amini Afshar or Rahman Hatfi to understand what I mean. Am I misunderstanding something here? Arbabi second (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The images you uploaded did not contain a non-free use rationale (see WP:FUR) and were therefore removed. Also, we tend not to use mugshots, for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

This page has become of what is being considered in RSes as Gamergate 2.0, though thankfully right now, attacks on BLP or other factors are minor, and from a quick history, very little revdel has been needed. However, a large number of fresh IP accounts have joined the discussion arguing against the approach taken in the current article (which is beholden to RS coverage and thus meet NPOV issues), being magnified in social media sources claiming the page is full of bias. (The article itself is locked down, that's not an issue)
Page has been tagged already with WP:DS/GG on gender-related discussions (which extended off the Gamergate arbcom case, and clearly applies here) But the number of IPs joining, knowing they are throwaway accounts, is getting louder. We probably just need some more admin eyes to make sure that we have 24/7 watch on any nonsense. — Masem (t) 00:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely needs additional eyes there. The talk page was already beginning to erupt a bit before the article page was protected, and the controversy doesn't show signs of cooling down any time soon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If it gets so bad is semi worth considering? I know we don't usually on talk pages but still that is getting a little hard to manage it looks like. Valeince (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe temp ECP would be more useful, but I wouldn't be against starting at semi. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A request for temporary semi-protection has been at RfPP for a couple of hours now. That said, in the immediate circumstances I think temp ECP would be useful, as there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing attempts on social media to the article and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The page has extended confirmed protection now, not be me, but by ToBeFree. Masem, do you think that the page will still need some extra eyes or if that should deal with the worst of it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Showed up just a bit late, but I'll say it anyway: my experience with the first 'Gamergate' leads me to believe that such a move will only magnify the already-occurring Streisand effect; that said, I completely understand it at the same time. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Streisand effect here in the traditional sense of the term. I would characterise this as more of a tangential pile-on, because the sources that we consider reliable (for good reason) are publishing content that runs counter to the narrative that the groups who wish to use this backlash to kickstart GamerGate 2 wish to establish. It's akin to how the original GamerGaters kept pushing the "ethics in journalism" mantra, despite almost all reliable sources on the movement describing it as primarily a vehicle for harassment. The large follower accounts on social media that have been directing people to the article and talk page have done so primarily because of the content of the article, and not because it is currently protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are, however, new comments coming very close to the line of personal attacks against editors. ECP should limit that, but as when GG happened, extended confirmed accounts came out of the woodwork there. We'll see, but also just as a general alert that we have this vector of complaints happening. — Masem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is veering into personal attacks. Right now, I think the remedy is blocks. If there is socking or brigading, protection may be warranted on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I know one user has been warned for making personal attacks against me, and I've read the other comments you're describing and agree with your appraisal. I'm also worried about the exhaustion factor, since midnight UTC there have been roughly 60 comments added to the talk page, and 112 over all of yesterday. How much more will we see over the next day? I can see the wisdom in temporarily ECPing the talk page, I can also see the wisdom in blocking SPAs, and I've proposed adding another option to the admin toolkit for this content area at ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic. It's been duly labeled as such on the talk page, reminders have been issued to practically every editor on the talk page, in-line reminder sections about behavior have been made; at this point liberal application of blocking is the appropriate strategy, IMO.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add that there ARE admins currently watching the page, I'm just worried about "mods are asleep, attack the page" mentality at least for now. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: there was exactly one (1) message that was considered a personal attack towards you, while it wasn't an intention, I can see how one can interpret it this way. Cheers. Moon darker (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And now a certain billionaire with a love for the 24th letter has weighed in on his website, so I expect this to get much worse before this gets better, especially going by this thread here. Nate • (chatter) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a particularly concerning tweet suggesting, if true, that an admin is participating in off-site coordination of disruption of the article and talk page. That's rather concerning, and if true, should probably merit emergency desysopping. Though, as best as I can tell from the edit log, and the user's subsequent tweets demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how adminship works, I suspect it's not actually true.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw that tweet about twenty minutes ago, and after doing some checking of the article and talk page history, I don't think this is an admin. There's another tweet they made about an hour later where they said that It's primarily admins on this forum for SBI since they removed edit privileges for regular editors. I suspect this is a rather clueless auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed editor, and I have suspicions about who it is based on one other tweet they made but I'll not post them here cause WP:OUTING. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I just came across another followup from them from early March in which they mentioned their editing permissions had been removed; so I suspect you're right. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, just found that tweet, and neither of the two editors I thought this is were blocked at that time. Could be sock puppetry maybe, or could just be someone trying to sound important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, seems they only added "Wikipedia Admin" to their Twitter desc. sometime after 12 Mar 2024 05:47:57 GMT (Google Cache: [68] *edit: cache updated). – 2804:F1...E9:12A8 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) *edited 10:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Archived cache entry --Moon darker (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that ECP has been implemented at the SBI talkpage.The "unblock request" at User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 is worth a look. Clearly if I deal with it, I must be part of a conspiracy, having declined their request at RFPP and blocked a different IP for harassment. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 100% repeats of the patterns from the Gamergate situation, with new users lacking good understanding of both our content and administrative policies, as well as the attitude that the apparent bias in the article is an afront to them they must correct. We've got many protections triggered but this type of activity is trying to route around that, which is again, a repeat from GG. Hence why I just urge continued monitoring of the situation. Masem (t) 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The behavior is almost word for word identical to GG. This time we have better mechanisms for dealing with editors that believe content is a direct personal affront. I hate to compare it to real life horrors like Ukraine or Gaza, but the level of personalized dudgeon is higher than those, with far less justification. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There had been a case pending at DRN, which I have closed because it is also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum, WP:AN). If the WP:AN thread there is closed after the off-wiki canvassing is sized up, and a content dispute remains, a new case can be opened at DRN. For now, I will not try to conduct mediation while there is another aspect of the dispute in process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ECP has settled things down a little bit. Robert, it's not said enough: thank you for your calm and patient work at DRN. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Constant reverting of changes by single editor despite Talk page agreements and general consensus reached

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,

My apologies if this isn't the right place or done correctly.

I, among other editors / users, have been attempting to add information to a page, namely the "Shooting of Chris Kaba" page. ( Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ).

Multiple different editors have added information recently released in the news and by the courts, specifically, the police officers name. This, time and time again, has been undone by a specific user, "Defacto" @DeFacto / DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This information has been added multiple times by multiple different editors, and each time reverted by this specific user. His argument is that there is no sound policy based reasons for adding it and apparently a consensus hasn't been reached. However, 4 people including myself agreed via the talk page it should be added, it is relevant (and a pretty major part of this case, as it's one of the first times a police officer has been named in a case like this), policies support it and there is precedent. It's publically available information with plenty of sources. We all had a good discussion on the talk page and it's only "DeFacto" that doesn't seem to agree with it being added. And while others including myself have reverted his changes and / or added the information back, he removes it again citing policies relating to biographies of living people.

I'm unsure how we can come to any further of an agreement / consensus to this editors satisfaction, but in my opinion, enough interest / agreement has been shown to add the name. Maybe i'm missing something and i'm wrong here, and that's okay, but i believe the situation needs to be resolved. T9537 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see that per this users talk page, it actually seems like "DeFacto" has a history of edit-warring & refusal to accept consensus, resulting in bans.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#DeFacto_ban_discussion T9537 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Some examples:

[69] [70] [71] [72] - 4 examples of changes being reverted.

Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (Naming of police officer) Discussion around this issue. T9537 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

T9537 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving this here for now, because it's already popped up on two messsageboards and doesn't need to move again right now. You've been reverted on BLP grounds -- the name of the officer involved is emphatically covered by BLP, and you're been edit-warring while asserting it isn't. I've declined your complaint at AN3 - you appear to be the prime edit-warrior, and I am unimpressed by your casting shade on DeFacto, who has clearly told you why you've been reverted. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also you neglected to notify DeFacto of this post, which is required. I've done it for you. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

At risk of yet another noticeboard, this belongs at BLPN, and if it can't be resolved there through wider discussion, then DRN. This is a content dispute that doesn't belong at either AN or ANI, so I'm closing it. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2024 (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.

Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes

Emrahthehistorist17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in mass edits to infoboxes which are inconsistent with many different guidelines on Wikipedia, including MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, {{Infobox military conflict}} |result= guidance, and unsourced additions to those infoboxes. When reverted, the user responds brusquely (eg Do not delete my additions) and instantly uses undo.

This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice. Edits of this character include the following articles:

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1210776403 r
2. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars&diff=1211069421&oldid=1210732707 r
3. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1211101487&oldid=1193607582 r
4. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains&diff=prev&oldid=1210545883 r
5. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gravia_Inn&diff=prev&oldid=1211181760 r
6. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_the_Ottoman_flagship_off_Chios&diff=prev&oldid=1209533110 r
7. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1209585624 r
8. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1527)&diff=prev&oldid=1211053965 r
9. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1084)&diff=prev&oldid=1211054955 r
10. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mithridatic_Wars&diff=1213687999&oldid=1195385904 r
11. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_War&diff=1213687451&oldid=1209447021 c
12. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Lycus&diff=1213505424&oldid=1136474359 c
13. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Syracuse_%28213%E2%80%93212_BC%29&diff=1213348990&oldid=1212984291 c
14. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Amorium&diff=1213347461&oldid=1212450445 c
15. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Heraclea&diff=1213346517&oldid=1212907329 c
16. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=1213302248&oldid=1210923833 c
17. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=1213177830 c
18. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)&action=history (1, 2) r
19. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Caucasus_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1213129109 r
20. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_%281735%E2%80%931739%29&diff=1213127193&oldid=1209365034 c
21. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Crusade&diff=1213037088&oldid=1211314336 r

These edits systematically disrupt the quality of these articles. I ask for a topic block – probably history of antiquity, the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey – with mass rollback. Pings follow for persons previously involved: @AirshipJungleman29, Kansas Bear, Padgriffin, and NebY. Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much alternative to a topic block absent a change in behavior. Talk:Mithridatic Wars#Revert, March 2024 is not encouraging. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Are they still going? AIV should suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading of WP:AIV was that it was unsuitable: The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam. Re whether there's some kind of progressive activity, the reverts relating to Mithridatic Wars occurred today; I doubt, from timing, the believability of claims of discontinuation. Ifly6 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider banning them from edits to infoboxes, in an attempt to let them edit in other areas and prove they are here to build an encyclopedia? Or should we figure they're not here? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If people believe Emrah's claim's viz I am a researcher and I really want to contribute to wikipedia and improve it, the former would be more productive. Whether that claim is believable given an apparent inability to understand simple requests (Read what?) is not up for me to decide. Ifly6 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you say their inability to understand what you posted for them to read indicates lack of competence in the English language? AirshipJungleman29, did Emrahthehistorist17's inability to understand what Ifly6 wrote seem like a competency issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps ping? Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:

After reading through everything, Emrahthehistorist17 should be banned from editing infoboxes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I think they are able to understand, they just don't want to follow WP:CONSENSUS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled RFP page backlog on March 2024

I am observing for few days on this RFP page that no admin has observing this page for a long time, creating a backlog of some 10 or more requests pending. Kindly see that this backlog issue is solved as early as possible. Thanking you, ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 03:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The last admin intervention was made by Femke on March 10, 19:49 UTC. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the rush? It's not as if you're fighting vandalism without rollback here. Hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have any interest in "Hat collecting", nor I had referred about gaining my rights immediately here. I can wait for that. Most of the requests are pending for likely more than 14 days. So I thought an admin would intervene at it's convenient time by notifying here and reduce the backlog and not clear it in one day. Assessing and reviewing takes time, you know it well. Just be chill and kudos! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

PCR 4 March, Rollback 5 March, AfC 7 March and requesting autopatrolled 16 March exactly after 25 articles? Are you sure you are not hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If you see that whatever I'm doing just to be getting those rights to make my status increase, then I don't need it. I didn't know that Hat colleting is wrong, when I'm trying to inform backlog that others have requested long time ago. This conversation has run it's course. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT demand from Rajeshthapaliya

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.

---

• Rajeshthapaliya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Draft:Arianna Thapaliya

User has been blocked for promotional editing after recreating (now thrice) deleted biography of his daughter, Draft:Arianna Thapaliya. It has been WP:oversighted. And for creating promotional content on his talk page. Portions of which have been oversighted as well. Considerable extended discussion was attempted to explain the deletion and the block, to no avail. (Please peruse it at your leisure at User talk:Rajeshthapaliya.) I redacted part of this discussion as it looked promotional and in case it too needed oversight. I carried over the last two paragraphs below--

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. However, I must express my disappointment with the decisions made regarding my account and editing privileges. First and foremost, I want to clarify that I have no vested interest in whether my daughter's page is included on Wikipedia or not. Whether her page remains on Wikipedia or not is inconsequential; her achievements will speak for themselves, and if they merit inclusion, someone else will undoubtedly add them in due course. Let us refrain from revisiting this topic in our discussions. My primary inquiry pertains to the abrupt decision to block my account and subsequently restrict my editing privileges. This platform is not private but rather a public resource for trustworthy information. Many individuals, myself included, regularly donate to support this noble cause. However, being labeled as a donor does not equate to relinquishing my right to question actions taken on this platform. As citizens, we have the constitutional right to voice our concerns and expect transparency and fairness in the decisions made. Furthermore, I am aware that Wikipedia operates with a relatively small team of volunteers. However, the tenure or service duration of these volunteers does not grant them unilateral authority to make decisions that impact users without accountability. We must remember that Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are subject to review and amendment by the appropriate bodies. Threatening to revoke access to my talk page is not only unwarranted but also disrespectful and an affront to my rights as a user. It is concerning that you are insinuating that my account may be blocked from accessing the talk page if I continue to raise concerns. Such behavior is not conducive to fostering a respectful and open dialogue between users and administrators. Additionally, the dismissal of AI as a valuable tool is perplexing, considering its potential to enhance efficiency and accuracy on this platform. As for the request to provide justification for future editing activities, I must question the necessity of such a requirement. Have I committed any wrongdoing in the past? Have I disseminated false information or engaged in spamming activities? These questions merit consideration before imposing restrictions on users. In conclusion, I reiterate my request to reinstate my editing access. I am approaching this matter with the utmost seriousness, and I will not rest until a satisfactory resolution is reached. No individual, regardless of their position, has the authority to impede the constitutional rights of others. If such actions persist on Wikipedia, it is imperative that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the accountability and integrity of the platform's governance. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I eagerly await your response. Sincerely, Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(omitted Primefac's reply}

Go a head and block this converstion too, remember this is not your company to act like this, there is a system, no one is above law. Siting in one room and using lap top if you want to make this decision, you are free to do so, I never seen such pathetic team who think my way or highway, you are living in the bubble , you are free to do so. Remember wikipedia is using public fund, how can it support like these admin who want to shut down user voice. Last joke for you, Wiki it self use AI and you are asking me not to use AI, the biggest joke i ever heard. All 5 admin should be banned to be a admin or at least they need training to be an admin. This is global village, live in harmony, being wki admin is not end of world, not sure what have these 5 people create in their life, would be interesting to know. Have you created anything in your whole life? Rajeshthapaliya (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Carried over by me. I will make notifications once I catch my breath. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but had tried to help this user try and understand how Wikipedia functions and they continued to stick their fingers in their ears and tried to hold the fact that they donated to Wikimedia and that should give them the ability to add whatever they want to the Encyclopedia. I don't think any admin or user so far has done anything out of line and at this point TPA should be revoked from Rajeshthapaliya and we carry on using our time on more important things like making an encyclopedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what action should be else taken here. The user is already indefblocked, I can not see oversighted edits but judging from the discussion this was a right action to take. They do not have any other edits. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the point was to "review the administrative actions", but I do agree, pulling TPA is pretty much the only thing I see happening as a result of this thread. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They want to hold us accountable. And so here we are. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

'Constitutional right'? To edit Wikipedia? What a bizarre notion. If Rajeshthapaliya wants to make being wrong on the internet a hobby, that's their choice. Since we are under no obligation to facilitate it here, we need to withdraw talk page access and be done with it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the block, and this ill-informed rant does nothing but demonstrate how justified it was, even without the implied legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of what I call the "spam fallacy": Someone strongly desires to add promotional content to Wikipedia, but this desire only exists because of the restrictions that are now being complained about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The more of these blocks I make (which is many thousands at this point), the more convinced I am that a lot of people genuinely don't realise that Linkedin-type behaviour is undesirable on Wikipedia. I would love it if we could make this clearer to people when creating an account or a userpage/draft/article but I suppose many people wouldn't read it and those that did wouldn't think it applied to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And even more so when the editor in question is a proud father. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have tried explaining that very point in my deletion notices. With varying degrees of success. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If Rajeshthapaliya wants to make being wrong on the internet a hobby, that's their choice.

I thought that was my job! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

🙃 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There is so much wrong to be done, it's a good thing there are lots of wrong-doers to wrong-do it. So, in short, "you're wrong". :) DMacks (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh, "to do the wrong thing for the right reason." or, "Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked TPA, as it appears they will not change their behaviour if unblocked, and they are not listening to the advice they are being given. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the worst parent ever since they apparently had some edits oversighted due to personal info about their daughter! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I was one of 3 admins who deleted that draft so I guess I'm one of the 5 administrators being questioned in this notice and why I received a talk page ANI notice. Admins can disagree so I think if an editor has 5 different admins pointing out that they, or their work, is not in line with the purpose of the project, that's a big red sign saying "You're doing it wrong". Talk page access has been removed so I guess, Deepfriedokra, that they made this appeal through UTRS? I might have have differed on the block or removing TPA but I can also understand why these actions were taken. My question for the editor is that they talk about the constitution and rights of citizens but Wikipedia is a global platform, not a national one. Which country? Which constitution? Wikipedia abides by U.S. laws because of where its headquarters and servers are located but treatment of editors doesn't follow national boundaries or at least, it shouldn't. There is a determination in these messages that I find worrisome but Wikipedia has faced real and veiled threats before and handled them successfully, as far as I know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see these posts were made before TPA was removed. I need to read all messages in a thread before posting. They should receive a UTRS notice though to inform them of this or we are just feeding the fire. I'll look for that template which I never can seem to find. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, endorse WP:G11 deletions and block for promotional editing. I saw the promo edits on the talk page. And the draft was deleted x 3. User remains adamant in their purpose to use Wikipedia for promotion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and what ToBeFree said above about the spam fallacy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• TPA has been removed, so is there any need to keep this open? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. To decide if the community supports the block and the deletions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  The deletions were well within the bounds of G11, so it's safe to say the community endorses them. Promotional editing is grounds for a block (especially when you do it three times) so I can't see any possibility of this not being endorsed. This sort of thing happens dozens of times a day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Trouble is, the proud father seems a mite deaf. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) They appear to be wrong on every single point in their posting, and clearly don't understand (and don't seem interested in understanding) the nature of Wikipedia. The deletions, block, and talk page access are all warranted and within the normal operation of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose abusive admin actions and forwarding to WMF and Arb. People who donate cash to our glorious leaders at the Foundation are supposed to get free passes on creating articles. </sarcasm> Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, block, and revocation of talk page access. No point in wasting any additional time here. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse both the deletion and the block. This person clearly does not understand that Wikipedia is not an unregulated free speech forum. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia funded by a private non-profit foundation, and we have every right to regulate, restrict and even block editors who have a glaring and obvious conflict of interest, and to impose mandatory core content policies. As for me, I strongly support the US First Amendment where it applies, but it simply does not apply to this website. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• I am a little bit concerned by a few comments here that seem to treat the first response as something the blocked editor has written themselves or even read before posting. It's true that the references to constitutional rights, etc., are nonsense, but the blocked editor hasn't actually come up with those arguments themselves. They've just copy-pasted Primefac and Deepfriedokra's messages into an LLM, had it generate a response, then copy-pasted the output on to their talk page. Making a comment refuting these garbles takes much more time and effort than it took for the blocked editor to generate the bogus argument in the first place, there's no point. – Teratix ₵ 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  He's already told us how wonderful LLM's are and how wrong we are for rejecting the output. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I told him such was not acceptable and that we wanted to hear from a person. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  And rightly so. – Teratix ₵ 04:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Endose - CIR, promotion issues for which we see the result. If I was in the admin's place, I would do the same thing. Wikipedia is not liable for allowing such editors who without reading our community guidelines, speak nonsense.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  And I literally mean it. Using AI, is a clear indication of editor's lack of communication in English as per CIR guidelines. And kindly protect the page creation just in case of any sock issues or recreation attempt. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Duck blind -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  See the rise of AI/LLM powered users creating promotional articles here . Most/all of them seem to be from India (in my encounters at least). Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  You know, it's really time that WMF Legal issued guidance or provided assistance for dealing with threats to use the Indian courts against WP and individual editors, AI-generated or not. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Guidance I'm not sure about, but I do know that Legal is/has/will help out with the Indian Courts if necessary. I'll see about adding that to the agenda for the next time we have a chat with those fine folks. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2024 (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.

Talk:Douglas Murray (author)#Request for Comment

This discussion has gotten pretty twisted. Fred Zepelin opened the RfC and one person responded before Springee changed one of the options (leaving a note about the change). It ran for a few days and garnered 17 or so !votes before FZ noticed the change and closed the discussion. Those of us who are involved are now quite torn on what to do next. We could leave it closed, and hope the edit war that preceded the RfC stays cold. We could re-open it and continue until consensus is clear. Maybe consensus is already clear, and an uninvolved editor could assess and summarize it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If the Fred Zepelin doesn't want to re-open the RfC, and there's still an open question about the consensus for the wording of the first sentence, would the simple solution not be to just launch another RfC with the same options as amended? That said, from a quick read of the survey and the change made by Springee doesn't appear to be that substantive other than explicitly stating the pre-RfC state of the lead, there's a pretty clear consensus so yeah an uninvolved editor could theoretically just assess and summarise it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, Its very clear that from the votes in the RfC that there is no consensus in favour of the change to describe Murray as "far right", and whether or not the RfC is invalid doesn't matter, because the consensus in the discussion is clear. There is no need to run the RfC again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone other than Fred Zepelin who shares their concerns that the change in wording has made it biased enough that it was likely to lead to certain outcome? Because if not, then it seems perfectly fine to respect the outcome of the RfC. Personally, I don't feel the wording change has biased the RfC and it obviously didn't change what the outcome means. The other respondent can be notified of the wording change and reassess their !votes if needed. RfCs belong to the community not to any particular editor so ultimately if the community is fine with the wording of an RfC, one editor's disagreement with it is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also will editors please, please, please sort out wording disputes before opening RfCs? I'm not suggesting an RfC on an RfC, but at least some brief mention of 'I'm planning to start an RfC with this wording, anyone have any problems with it' should be considered if it's something which is highly contentious or where the wording might be a problem. I'll be blunt that this is even more important if you're very particular that someone should not tamper with your words, indeed it might be better to let someone else open it in that event of don't bother to include your name. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the other respondent has already been notified so there's no issue with that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

One final comment, if editors feel the RfC should be reopened because it hasn't run long enough, I'm perfectly fine putting my name to it if people feel it needs a name, and no one else wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I think this discussion has died down. Would you mind reopening as an uninvolved? Thanks, Springee (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose opening it again. I !voted for B, 9 minutes after Springee changed the wording, but now I wonder: why did I do that when I am in fact against having it in the lead? My memory is imperfect but quite possibly it's because I had read the pre-change wording before I composed a reply. I've already said that technically it seems the OP had a right to close early. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan:, can you better explain your concerns? In particular, do you feel the new wording somehow unfairly leads readers to a certain option which Fred Zepelin seems to feel but no one else does? As noted by other respondents, the wording change makes zero change to the result of either option A or B. A will call him far-right in wikivoice, B will not. If you wanted to propose removing the long term mention of his links to the far right, you needed to have either started a second RfC or proposed an option C.

And to be clear, you always needed to do that, with or without the wording change since there was never any suggestion of removing them. The RfC started and remains solely about whether to explicitly call him far-right in wikivoice. The fact you didn't propose an option C early on means the chance of an option C getting consensus in the current RfC is quite low from my experience. But again that was always the case with or without the wording change. And I don't think it's fair that get to ask to restart the RfC because you're not happy you didn't notice that the RfC does not deal with something you feel needs to be dealt with and so sort of lost your chance to deal with it.

A second RfC proposing to remove any mention could have more success although I find this unlikely since no one else seemed to feel similar in the existing RfC. Still it does not seem to me that whether this RfC is reopened affects that other than possibly providing further evidence there's little support for such a change so calling into question the need for a second RfC. (I mean whether this RfC is reopened, people are still going to read whatever they read into the earlier comments as to whether there's merit for a second RfC suggesting to remove the long term mention of links to the far right in the lead.)

All that being the case if you feel the new wording is actually clearer or at least it's a neutral change in terms of what the RfC is about i.e. whether to call him far-right in wikivoice in the lead, I don't see why it's a problem.

It's unfortunate if somehow a respondent came to a different conclusion despite a neutral or better change, but since that cannot be blamed on the change then that's not a concern. Importantly, the next respondent was over 30 minutes after the wording change and [73] and while it's always possible they opened the page then took a while to respond, it seems unlikely but we could always notify everyone who replied within 2 hours of the wording change if you really feel that's a concern.

If you want to re-word your comment after it's reopened, well that's one advantage with reopening it. Importantly IMO, while not perfect, there seems to be some sort of consensus with the current RfC so whether we re-open it the result is likely to be the same, that we do not describe him as far-right in wikivoice. (But do mention his links which were never part of the RfC.) I mean there's a slight chance a new consensus will emerge, or at least consensus will become less clear when reopened, but I don't think that should be a reason against reopening as acknowledged by most supporters of the current consensus.

Actually this the sort of weird situation we're in since it's largely supporters of the outcome of the RfC who want to re-open it. Yet the only thing that can happen is their current consensus is lost. Fred Zepelin who proposed it would prefer a different outcome, but them closing isn't going to help that.

As mentioned by others, if they try to re-add far-right to the lead without somehow getting a new consensus, that could easily be seen as disruptive editing.

If anyone wants to reopen a new RfC, that might be slightly more acceptable with the RfC closed early but that there does not seem to be much appetite by many participants for that regardless of the close. And any new RfC would definitely need long discussion on the wording so we don't get any of this mess any more. Plus there's no reason to expect a different outcome with a new RfC. So this really feels all a bit pointless.

P.S. To be clear, I can sort of understand why Fred Zepelin isn't happy that their signed comment was change without them being sufficiently made aware. However the complexity here is while their comment was signed, the signature is mostly irrelevant. It shouldn't have affected anyone other than perhaps if someone was confused by some aspect of the proposal and relied on Fred Zepelin's other comments to help clarify, but that seems incredibly unlikely in the situation.

As I noted, RfC opening statements don't even require a name in their signatures anywa. They really should be thought not so much as signed statements but something the community is using as part of the consensus building process. And so if the new RfC wording is neutral or better, then it's IMO largely irrelevant it was changed even if Fred Zepelin feeling aggrieved about their signed words being changed is reasonably. But still, if they do not want their name to be under the current wording that's fine hence why I suggested I could just put my name to it although frankly we could also just remove any name.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed B because the original question implied the status quo lead didn't say anything about far right. As I recall the current lead ("links to far right" at the end) was a compromise between those who said the claims of far right were weak/poor and shouldn't be in the lead at all vs those who said it should be in the opening of the lead. B without that notion could be taken to mean remove far-right entirely. Thus an editor who supported the status quo lead might think this RfC was proposing to remove it entirely and thus might vote A because they feel it needs to be in the lead somewhere. I'm ok keeping the close in place if the close assess consensus (status quo vs change to the lead) rather than just says never mind. I think a consensus had emerged and it can be used to avoid arguments the next time someone tries to put far right in the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I could write a post as long as yours to deny all the desires you attribute to me and object further to what Springee and Hemiauchenia did. But it's easier on all of us to say: okay, do whatever it is you think others want. If that means you'll re-open, I'll just strike my !vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Springee's change does clarify the status quo, but also slightly changes the scope of the RfC in that it's no longer just about the first sentence -- consensus for B would be to reinforce consensus to include "far-right" in the lead. The clarification should've been a description of the status quo above/below the options rather than extending one of the options. That said, the change was made at the start of the RfC and the revised version is what the overwhelming majority of participants !voted on. FZ's argument is that it biases the question in favor of Springee's position. As I read it, since it either clarifies what's already the case or solidifies the use of the label in the lead, I don't agree. Peter's objection seems along the lines of the latter (that it extends the second option too much). So, (1) Reopen the discussion and allow it to proceed, understanding that the RfC is only about the first sentence. (2) Springee, in the future please be sure to ping everyone who already participated if changing the RfC wording (including the person who started the RfC). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Idiot Savants (game show):

Could someone please move Idiot Savants (game show) back to just Idiot Savants? I don't see why it was moved as there's nothing else by that name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Idiot savant (singular) points to Savant syndrome and the plural should probably be pointed to that as well, rather than the game show. I would imagine more people would be using that term (singular or plural) as a search term when looking for Savant syndrome than looking for the game show. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, sounds reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  The game show needs to study up on grammar – the plural of idiot savant is idiots savants. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  But it's a common mistake. Ask any of my former mother-in-laws... Common enough to justify the redirect. As I write, Idiots savant is a red link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Challenge accepted. I'll go back to lurking now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Overwatch and Talk:Overwatch (video game) archives are messed up

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

---

It appears that a bit of a mess regarding talk page archives were created following a number of page moves with the "Overwatch (video game)" and "Overwatch" pages.

The video game article was originally moved to the title without the disambiguator in the title, following this requested move in April 2022. With it, the talk page as well as its subpages (the archives) were moved to titles without the " (video game)" part.

Then, in October 2022, a user moved the Overwatch page to Overwatch (video game) themself, to create an article about the broader topic (franchise) at the "Overwatch" page. However, it appears that those talk page archives were not moved along with it as well, looking here and here for example.

So now, the current state of these talk page archives is that the talk page archives and respective threads belonging to the video game article are stuck at the general (franchise) page's titles, and the archive links on the top of the Talk:Overwatch (video game) page are redirecting to the Talk:Overwatch archives rather inappropriately.

We definitely need to do something regarding the Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 1 and Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 2 redirects. In fact, if you take a look at the Archive 2 redirect, a bot is actually archiving threads automatically there! So definitely would at least need to delete Archive 1 and move Archive 2 to 1 to fix things up here.

But I'm afraid more cleanup is needed than that – since the archives were forgotten to be moved to the appropriate pages when the Overwatch → Overwatch (video game) page move was conducted by Soulbust on October 2022, we probably need to move / histmerge them back to the Talk:Overwatch (video game) titles to properly clean things up here.

I'm posting here at WP:AN because I don't think this fits into a single category like RM, HistMerge or RfD, and will likely require a combination of several admin actions to clean it up (redir deletions, technical page moves, possible histmerges etc). — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately I don't think there's any user misconduct here, and AGF tells me the user simply forgot / didn't know about the talk page archives when moving the Overwatch page in October 2022, but since I mentioned their name here I've notified Soulbust anyway. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of this: the archives have been re-united with Talk:Overwatch (video game), which is the page they were originally archived from. I copied the content that was archived under the redirect into the real archive. No histmerge necessary since the history was all trivial. The page at Talk:Overwatch is not currently being archived, but anyone should be able to enable it without any issues. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's all fixed now, thanks! It turns out this wasn't as complicated as I thought, as there are actually no archives on the Talk:Overwatch page. I had thought there were archives on both talk pages and we'd have to un-mix them up and whatnot. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2024 (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.

Can we have some admin help at DYK?

Hello. All queues are empty at Template:Did you know/Queue, and admin help is required in moving some prep sets to the queues. There are 20 hours before the next DYK queue goes live. The volunteers at DYK and I appreciate any help that will be made! Apologies if this isn't the correct place to post this, but I could not think of anywhere else. ‍ Relativity 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Mschwartz1 granted extended confirmed for the purpose of participating in arbitration

Mschwartz1 (talk · contribs) is granted the extended-confirmed user group for the exclusive purpose of participating in a case request about Israel-Palestine.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 15:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Mschwartz1 granted extended confirmed for the purpose of participating in arbitration

User: Psychologist Guy

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User: Psychologist Guy

Primefac (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Alleged doxing of users and other concerns

Benchmarkingsalad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a number of edits warning other users that they are targets of doxing efforts by Kiwifarms. The alleged doxing is related to StoneToss. I do not know if these allegations are legit and if the user (who openly admits their account is a "throwaway" to protect their own identity) is correct. I am AGF that Benchmarkingsalad is doing what they believe to be correct and helpful.

I am hoping some other admins can take a look at this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Until it shows up on-wiki there's really not much we can do here. Hopefully it stays off-wiki but if it does show up please email the Oversight Team immediately so we can take care of it. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that not a sock like User:PolLovinPepe? —Alalch E. 18:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This (now revdelled) message is both obviously malicious and awfully similar to what Benchmarkingsalad has been saying. It's entirely possible this person is just making stuff up to scare those editors off that article and its talk page. City of Silver 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested Partial Blocking to be removed

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.

---

Today images /gallery was/were removed and my account was partially blocked, it is requested that Partial Blocking be removed. The images removed carried the evidence/source/correctness and were also "open source" that is available to all. Should I post them seperate under heading: Images? Guidance requested . Thanks Surance (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read any of the messages posted on your talk-page? This one and this one seem particularly relevant. --JBL (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

SPI backlog

More admin and checkusers should take a look at the rising backlog of WP:SPI. It keeps growing these days. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Three big discussions for Where is Kate?

We have Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate?, Talk:Where is Kate?#Requested move 21 March 2024 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination), all ongoing right now, and all affecting the same article. In case you'd not guessed, it's Where is Kate?.

Am I right in thinking that only one of these discussions should be open? Should we close the two that were started most recently, or is there an established order of precedence? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Liz has just closed the new AfD, which I think is correct as there was already an existing deletion review. I don't see why the move request can't continue, but obviously the deletion would have to be resolved before any move could take place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A move request with more than a dozen options feels more like a doomed RfC. I don't know how one would ever close it as anything other than no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also the BLPN discussion, which seems the longest & most active (and, I think I see a consensus there). Most practical solution may be a new AfD (WP:XC-restricted, to avoid the obvious factors that lead to these BLPGOSSIP issues), or if admins are feeling particularly ballsy we could just go straight for the correct outcome and delete (based on BLPN consensus, WP:BLP, IAR if necessary), only recreating when (/if) it receives genuine secondary coverage, like academic analyses of the media phenomenon. DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting a new AFD while the closure on the first AFD is being debated is just inviting chaos which is the last thing this debate needs. People need some patience for the process to work. I think it's possible that embarrassment or regret may be driving people to want to act quickly. Let the Deletion review run its course and see what its outcome is before launching into new discussions. DRV can always be closed early if it looks like a SNOW close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The BLPN is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Middleton, and it appears to have been started before any of the three tht I linked in my first post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the deletion review can be snow-closed, if an uninvolved editor is happy to check for consensus, so that we can move onto the third AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of User "McGamer YouTube" Promoting ISIS

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 Administrators, I am writing to report concerning behavior by the user "McGamer YouTube" on Wikipedia. Upon reviewing their contributions, I have observed a pattern of edits that appear to promote ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), a recognized terrorist organization. Additionally, the user's profile picture prominently features an ISIS flag, further indicating their support for this extremist group. Evidence of the user's behavior includes: |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khawarji&redirect=no |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahrar_al-Sham&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ayyub_al-Masri&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Nujaba_TV&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shurat_Islam |https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Shehade [74]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MCGAMER_YOUTUBE Promoting terrorist organizations such as ISIS is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies, and immediate action is warranted to address this issue. I urge the administrators to thoroughly investigate the user's activities and take appropriate measures to ensure the integrity and safety of Wikipedia's editing environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Larrymhardy (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2024 (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.

Large backlog at UAA

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.

---

Need some admin eyes over there to address a large backlog of bot-reported usernames. I've boldly cleared out some obvious false positives, but many of them are indeed questionable and will need further evaluation. The bot list had grown to the largest I've seen in a long while. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to see that most of those reports aren't actionable, as most of the bot reports aren't because the purpose of the bot is to cast a wide net and catch anything that even might be a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I blocked one account and noted a few that are false positives, but there's more to check through. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2024 (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.

Ruda Real

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.

---

Should Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real be deleted? Per discussions here and elsewhere, the person really did exist but just wasn't notable (this includes a link to their album which corresponds with the track listing given on Discogs). As there is proof of this person not being a hoax, I see no reason to archive it among other hoaxes (indeed, it has been removed from WP:LOHOW, meaning this page is no longer linked from anywhere). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted (again) because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruda Real. It was only restored from deletion and archived as a hoax per the request of a single editor. However, as you've pointed out, subsequent discussions raised doubts that this was ever a hoax and it was removed from LOHOW. I've deleted it again. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Request to remove graphic content

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, how do I report graphic content on a wiki page? 77.102.37.56 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You may discuss it here, but it depends on the context. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. If there is a graphic image that is inappropriate for the article it is on, or should be in a different location in the article, we can do something about that, but a graphic image can be present if it is relevant to the topic(such as an image of male anatomy in the article about it). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You may also discuss it on the article talk page, this isn't specifically an administrator issue necessarily. If you just don't want to see graphic imagery, there are ways to suppress the display of images(see WP:NOSEE) though they require creating an account. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Closure of ANI discussion

I ask that an uninvolved administrator close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Follow up from VPM. Discussion in the main two threads has slowed to a near-halt, and the subsection I opened to ask for closure quickly turned into heavily-involved participants relitigating the debate. Resolution before the thread is archived would be preferable. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A good place to request closures is WP:ANRFC. The section "Topic ban for Thmazing" looks like a straightforward close for someone (maybe me if I get time and if my one comment in the Rachel Helps discussion doesn't make me INVOLVED). The section "Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps" looks a bit trickier. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgot there was an "Administrative discussions" subsection at CR; now posted there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User openly admits that their edits were made for an organization in return for possible compensation

User:Suriyanarayana admits that they edit on behalf of the organization called BCCI, as seen here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wayfarer_Pacifist&diff=prev&oldid=1215465866&title=User_talk%3AWayfarer_Pacifist&diffonly=1

As seen in the diff, they say "You undid an official piece of work I did for the authorities within the BCCI".

They also go on to say, "However, I humbly request you to not remove critical information that plays a factor for fan following and hence has financial ramifications".

Not sure what they mean here, but they seem to be claiming that they edit on behalf of BCCI for advertising or promotion.

(Wayfarer Pacifist (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC))

In case anyone's wondering, the edits in question were made to Kolkata Knight Riders and probably other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The last line in their comment is worrying - Failure to do so will result in you being reported to Wikipedia and authorities in BCCI. There's a hint of WP:NLT pressure there. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) "Failure to do so will result in you being reported to ... authorities in BCCI". Not a legal threat as such (since the BCCI is not a court or other legal entity). However, this is still a threat, and as such is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Fix mistake with protection

Over at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Media_bias I do not see the little lock emblem up in the top right corner, and yet when I try to edit, a 30/500 banner suddenly warns me of potentially being blocked for doing so; which I, apparently, could. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this makes little sense to me. Maybe remove protection entirely and let me fix the formatting issues? Biohistorian15 (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is not protected. The banner is warning you that unless you meet certain qualifications, you must not edit it. You do not meet those qualifications.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Biohistorian15 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Abusive use of Twinkle

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

---

Hello. I've recently made a small edit, in good faith, which was quickly reverted by a user who, apparently, is using Twinkle. No message or attempt to contact me was made prior to this revert, but I did get my personal Talk page soiled by an entry that accuses me of Disruptive Editing, and threats of me being banned.

After visiting that user's own Talk page, and scrolling all the way to the bottom, I realize I'm not the only one being affected by this behaviour. At least two other people have actively complained about spontaneous reverts, but others may have remained silent. Basically, the user in question simply reverts people's edits, assumes Disruption or Vandalism, and never tries to communicate with his targets before reverting their edits.

I believe this is a form of abuse and not how Twinkle is meant to be used. How should I proceed in a situation like this? I never had to report anyone on this platform before, so some guidance would be welcome.

Note: I'm not naming the user here because I don't know if the situation warrants it, and I'd like some feedback before "naming and shaming" (so to speak).

Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not notified the reported of this thread; I have done so. And you are required to name who you have a concern with, which is easy to ascertain based on the talk page notice, and that was Vif12vf. As I'm not in the topic area, I have no say on the dispute itself. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I explained why I haven't mentioned any names, and that was because I was NOT reporting anyone. I was asking for information and advice. You, apparently, did not understand my message and acted according to your assumption. If the information received was that there's nothing to be done, no report would go forward, and a conflict would've been avoided - but through your actions, a further conflict is now inevitable. Raven-14 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

[Y]ou are required to name who you have a concern with, emphasis mine. Your message was understood, but if you wanted to keep things anonymous, you should have gone directly to an admin to ask for advice. If you post on a public noticeboard, it's not fair to the other editor to deny them a chance to explain and/or defend themselves. Your version/narrative can't be the only version/narrative. Grandpallama (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't generally expected to notify someone before reverting an edit. After your edit was reverted, the proper course of action would have been for you to start a discussion on the article's talk page to resolve the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted this based on the text that appears under the Wikipedia Twinkle page, where the Abuse sections says:

-

"Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response."

-

This is why I brought the issue here, to get clarification. Raven-14 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:TWINKLE is neither a policy nor a guideline. The other editor might argue that your change was inaccurate, thus not constructive. Please, take it to the article talk page and work it out between you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss on that article Talk page because it's not an issue with content dispute, but rather with a user's attitude.

Put simply, I'd like to know if Wikipedia is meant to be a friendly place where people talk things out before action, or if it's a place where some users can just act like they own the place.

If it's the former, then I believe some users are acting in an abusive manner. If it's the latter, then I might as well quit Wikipedia altogether. I've been here since 2010 and never had an argument with anyone. So I don't appreciate being accused of disruption and threatened to be banned by other people when they feel like it.

The opinion of an Admin would be welcome. Raven-14 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"The other editor might argue that your change was inaccurate, thus not constructive." they wouldn't be allowed to use twinkle in that circumstance. You use twinkle when something is disruptive, if its just inaccurate/not constructive its not a tool you can use. They can revert on their own, but using the tool there is actually kind of abusive. Let me put it this way: both of them can be in the wrong (but neither to the point where we need to be talking about it on a noticeboard). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I've recently made a small edit Are you talking about this edit? That might be small in terms of text changed, but it's a pretty major edit, in general. Changing the orientation of a political party isn't usually the sort of thing one does without getting consensus, and certainly not after being reverted. Since you brought up Twinkle guidelines, any Twinkle user would be justified in considering that a disruptive (rather than constructive) edit, as well as in questioning if it were made in good faith. It's also clear Twinkle was used because there was an intervening edit in between your initial edit and the revert that also needed to be undone. Grandpallama (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Raven-14 later reverted themselves, effectively restoring the article to the same version as me. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide wikilinks, usernames, and WP:DIFFs if you'd like this report to be actionable. I could go digging in your contribs looking for this information, but in my opinion you should present this information clearly so that other editors don't need to spend a bunch of time researching. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks

- Portuguese Labour Party

UserNames

- Raven-14

- Vif12vf

WP:DIFF

- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Labour_Party&diff=1215171823&oldid=1215140162

The point of this report is that the user Vif12vf is in the habit of reverting people's edits without any sort of prior communication, and then invades user's Talk pages with accusations of bad faith edits, and threats of banning.

There are certainly more friendly ways to deal with an edit you don't think should've been made.

As mentioned before, I'm not the only target. I can't speak for other users, and don't know if they wish to complaint as well, but Vif12vf's talk page reveals I'm not the only one to be greeted in the same way.

I'm obviously the most interested party here, but I'm also thinking that if Vif12vf behaviour continues, there will be many users rightfully aggrieved by his unfriendly attitude.

A further reminder that I've been on wikipedia for fourteen years, and never had an issue with anybody. In my view, the user should've tried to talk to me first, ask if I had a source for the edit, and try to work things out politely, rather than what he opted to do.

If the information listed above isn't enough, please let me know.

Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the OP made a bold unsourced edit that was reverted. Instead of starting a discussion about it (per WP:BRD), they reverted the revert with an edit summary that makes no sense (according to them, only knowledgeable editors can revert unsourced/unexplained changes), they accused the other editor of vandalism (in the edit summary of the second revert) and then went through Vif12vf's talk page to look for something that will help them build a case for ANI. If that wasn't bad enough, they also canvassed a couple of editors (see diff and diff). M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. In fact, it looks like all of their article edits from the past few days have been unsourced orientation changes to Portuguese political parties. Pretty close to the very definition of disruptive behavior. The editor is so inexperienced (despite the repeated protestations otherwise) that suggesting a boomerang sanction seems severe, but they need a firm admonition to bone up on core policies...like sourcing. Grandpallama (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I never claimed to be experienced editor.

  
  

  I said I was here for fourteen years and never had a problem with any other user.

  
  

  Please, note the difference.

  
  

  Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The issue isn't, and never was, about whether my original edit was good or bad. In fact, I reverted the page back myself, to stop the reversion war.

  
  

  The issue is the aggressive way the other user opted to address his issue with the edit. Were the roles reversed, I would've contacted him before doing any reverts, and tried to be polite about it (assuming good faith, as is suggested all around this site) - not accuse him of anything or threaten him with being banned.

  
  

  I'd appreciate if people focused on the issue of the user's behaviour, rather than the straw man of "but what about the quality of the OPs edits". Raven-14 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you post here, your conduct will be examined too. In this case, it appears that the behavioral problem lies with you, not the person you're complaining about. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2024 (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.

Negative stereotyping + accusing of a fellow editor of "misleading"

User:SLIMHANNYA has negatively stereotyped an entire race in the Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture page. Also, the user has claimed others of "obviously misleading" which is against the Wikipedia:Disruptive user under "False accusations". Kolossoni (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I used that expression because I thought it was a good analogy, and I apologize if it was a racist remark. I am not a native English speaker, and it seems there was a serious problem with the way I expressed myself. I will not use such language again. However, saying "obviously misleading" is not a false accusation. Please see the relevant talk page for more information.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

negatively stereotyped an entire race Is this claim in reference to the kimchi juice comment? Because it seems pretty farfetched to say that analogy was some sort of defamatory comment. I don't see anything sanctionable here, just some misrepresentation by Kolossoni, who I also observe didn't bother to post the required notice to SLIMHANNYA's talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin, your two cents hold no water here. Kolossoni (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-admins are welcomed to comment here, and if we're really going by your logic, I don't think non-admins have a say in whose comments hold weight in this noticeboard either.

Could you elaborate on what, if any, personal attacks the user you have reported have made? The analogy with kimchi juice doesn't seem like negatively stereotyp[ing] an entire race to me, and the quoted obviously misleading seems to be a comment on content and not other contributors. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Kimchi" is a racist slur used by anti-Korean rhetoric propagators who stereotype the entire race as the "most commonly known food" of Korea. It is the equivalent of calling Mexicans "Salsa and Chips" or "Tacos" simply because their ethnicity is Mexican. The page was directly alluding to Koreans and their influence on Japanese history and the usage of "Kimchi juice" analogy to describe an entire race's genealogy is not only discriminating but also against Wikipedia's rules of keeping things civil and objective. Kolossoni (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Unless you're an admin, your two cents hold no water here." wrong Kolossoni. Admin have the tools to enforce the will of the community, we aren't the police or judges. The most helpful or insightful comments matter most, no matter who makes them. That said, I don't see how the kimchi comment was racist, even after your explanation, although I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, since using kimchi as an analogy for Korean people does seem to be inappropriate. (see wikt:kimchi#Noun) I don't think this raises to the level of sanctions though. They have apologized and said they won't use this language again. Let's try to assume good faith here, as I don't think the choice of analogy was intentionally used as a racist dog whistle. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef, I just want to point out that there is a difference between directly calling a person a kimchi (much like calling a German a "kraut"), which is a clear slur and what the Wiktionary link supports, and the way in which SLIMHANNYA actually used it (i.e., talking about "kimchi juice"). It may not have been wisely chosen, but it's also not as far into inappropriate as Kolossoni has cast it in their version of how it was used. Grandpallama (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop with your gaslighting.

Using "kimchi" to allude to Korean genealogy in regards to a topic on Koreans is highly inappropriate. The fact that "Kimchi juice" was used, not "Orange juice", "Lemonade" or any other average analogy that would be more appropriate shouldn't prevent criticism of misusing the word. Kolossoni (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Agreed, thanks for making this point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not called the individual a "racist" by any means. The term was brought up by other fellow members of Wikipedia. I only called out on the individual's negative stereotyping in which they have apologized. This was a safety measure in case the act continued. Kolossoni (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This sort of escalation is unnecessary. For next time, try to resolve with the person on their talk pages. We are working in a diverse place with people from very different backgrounds, so it is important that we assume people are not here to do harm unless we can be convinced otherwise.

In this case, you have implicitly claimed that SLIMHANNYA was a disruptive user, and by bringing the matter to here have suggested that admin actions were warranted. I don't believe either of that is true. Posting to this noticeboard can give people stress, and requires admins to invest time and energy to handle what is brought here. Please reconsider whether it is necessary to post here the next time you encounter cases like this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but you must also take into consideration that the analogy was made in an article's talk page that revolves around Koreans that came out of nowhere. It is not difficult to think such claims as discriminatory especially without proper context, in which was not given.

Like you said, it is difficult to figure out what background an individual is from, but at the same time, I doubt people would keep such negative stereotyping under the rug if it happened elsewhere. It was a hasty action on my part, but only in hindsight. I still believe a show of level of discrimination should be on high surveillance since any form of racism or negative stereotyping is not permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it was a "mistake" by the individual or not.

Thanks for the quick response though. Kolossoni (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not called the individual a "racist" by any means. The term was brought up by other fellow members of Wikipedia. That's false. Not only did you use the term "racist", but you incorrectly recast what SLIMHANNYA actually said (you were the one who made a racist analogy in regards to the Korean people being "Kimchi" from the start which clearly screams "agenda") on the talkpage as part of a pretty massive assumption of bad faith even after they had apologized.

the analogy was made in an article's talk page that revolves around Koreans that came out of nowhere This is also untrue. Whatever your feelings about the analogy, it was clearly used to illustrate the point SLIMHANNYA was attempting to make. Multiple editors have now told you this wasn't a case of racism or negative stereotyping, so please stop characterizing it as such.

I would invite admins, though, to take a look at your userpage and talk, which feature some clear WP:BATTLEGROUND comments that might explain what is going on here.

• Your userpage states Any baseless vandalism to propagate one's agenda will be manually reverted regardless of amount or length unless it's backed by proper citation alluding to a reputable source. Talks for dispute are always welcome, but come prepared though.
• Also on the userpage: I absolutely DETEST Japanese nationalism, Chinese nationalism and Korean nationalism, so all you Nettouyos, Wumaos and Ilbes can buzz off.
• Complaints on the talkpage about WP requiring sources: I have tried and tried again to help you with creating translated pages for the articles you've posted, but Wikipedia's strict criteria is starting to tire me out. . . I'm not so keen in doing another edit battle with the Wikipedia mods again, but if enough sources are available, I'll see what I can do to contribute.

None of these are sanctionable, but I think there's a clear mentality here (combined with Kolossoni's two cents response to my initial comment) that shows an over-willingness to see WP as a place to fight/argue. I think they need a caution about their approach to other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: They just scrubbed their talkpage of a conversation where you can see Kolossoni frequently dipping into borderline uncivil comments. Not to mention that in scrubbing most of the conversation, they selectively kept only a portion of what the other user had written. TPO gives a lot of latitude around one's own talkpage in terms of what to delete/keep, but this feels like misrepresentation of the IP's comments. Grandpallama (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

After doing some more digging into edit histories, I have filed a case at SPI. I know there is a backlog right now, but perhaps a CU who has seen this AN thread would be willing to prioritize a check? I'm now suspicious this was really about a POV-pusher trying to use this noticeboard to silence opposition. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to the relevant SPI case.--JBL (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kolossoni, see WP:BOOMERANG. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• At a minimum, this looks like meatpuppetry. At worst, it is socking and trying to use AN as a tool to silence or remove someone who disagrees with your edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

2a02:c7c::/32

I stumbled upon 2a02:c7c::/32's block log today and am not sure what exactly I'm looking at. An indefinite partial /32 rangeblock, anon-only, for whack-a-mole responses until the page limit of 10 for such a block is reached? Is 2A02:C7C:3E09:A400::/64 related? Four pages were affected – do I now add them to the block?

This is strange. Does the block have to be indefinite? Sadly we can't see how many edits have been prevented by it, but my guess would be that for every prevented edit, another attempt was made to a non-blocked page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, there are 10 pages in the block already! Perhaps we can now start indefinitely blocking two /33s at the same time, and then four /34s for every page that needs to be added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the history of the block. 2A02:C7C:CB99:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 has made nonsense edits to Gin Wigmore three times in the last few days, and also edits to other articles which are outside my areas of interest. I was planning to partial range block the /64, and would have done so for a few days, but noticed the existing /32 block and decided to add to that, as other users of this SKY UK IP range are unlikely to be interested in the NZ singer.

Clearly the /32 range has some problematic editors. It probably also has productive editors. I'm happy to remove my part of the block and apply it to the /64 for a limited period instead, and perhaps other admins who added to the indefinite block would consider doing the same.-Gadfium (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I re-examined the ranges for the targets I added; none of them need to apply to the entire /32 range, so you're free to clear Forest Gate Community School and List of Super Smash Bros. series characters from the block if someone wants to refactor it. That's a pretty big range, but so far I haven't seen any LTAs that seem to be bouncing across the entire /32 (Jefté and Super Smash could be addressed with a /39 range, and Deglet Nour can be addressed with a /64 range). I wouldn't impose an indefinite block on a range without discussing it with other involved admins; even for really bad ranges, it's not a big deal to renew every few years. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• My contribution was adding Talk:British Post Office scandal & Talk:World Book Day to the block. Personally I would not have made an indefinite block, and I had misgivings about adding to it, but it seemed more straightforward to just add to the existing block than anything else. Perhaps it would have been better if I had instead opened a discussion, as ToBeFree has now done.
• Looking at the editing histories of the two pages I have mentioned I can't see any reason for a block of more than /64. I am much inclined to think my decision to use a wider block was due to evidence which made me think that the edits,were from someone who had also been active on other pages, using a wider IP range, but at present I am very short of time, and can't check the history to find what that evidence was. For now I intend to just remove my part of the block, but I may come back to this discussion when I have more time. JBW (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed my block as well and restored the previous settings, as it seems my addition changed the duration to indefinite. Widr (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The indefinite-ness (indefinity?) of the block was the main reason why I started a discussion instead of just thinking "well, it will expire anyway, and if it's really needed, someone will renew it". Thanks everyone ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins need to all take a course in IPv6. A /32 covers millions of users and even /64s can have multiple innocent customers behind a router for example in houses of multiple occupation. And with ipv4 address exhaustion hundreds of computers can be behind an ipv4. I think ip blocking should be phased out with more focus on semi protection and edit filters. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC).

DYK at 2-a-day

WP:DYK has moved to 2-sets-a-day, which means we will need more admin to help promote preps to queues. Admin instructions are located at WP:DYKAI, and I recommend installing WP:PSHAW, which automates many of the technical steps. Any help with is appreciated, and questions can be asked at WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe cut back on the admins having to do the required checks. I don't mind the next bits but the DYK should be ready beforehand. You might get more admins willing to help. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Advice sought on personal attacks in AfDs

As an AfD closer, I occasionally come across personal attacks by people who are offended by an AfD nomination, and sometimes I act on them. I recently was strongly criticized for blocking somebody for what I considered a personal attack in an AfD, but which almost everybody else who commented considered not to be one. So now I'd like to take the advice of the community and particularly fellow admins to recalibrate my civility sensor, as it were.

In another AfD I am now faced with, a high school radio station was nominated for deletion for lack of notability. One of the responses read in relevant part: "Outright deletion achieved through consensus in name only, built on a nomination intended to promote systemic bias, would solely benefit the desires of those editors who appear more interested in defining what's notable than reflecting what's notable." Then they go on to complain about a "group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content". The editor who made this comment has no prior blocks, but several complaints about personal attacks on their talk page. (I'm not naming the editor or the AfD at issue, as I don't want to drag anyone into the spotlight unwarrantedly.)

Now, my assessment is that alleging without evidence that the nominator "intend[s] to promote systemic bias" through their AfD is a personal attack, particularly in view of WP:ASPERSIONS. But, as noted above, my assessment may be out of line with community consensus. What do others think? Sandstein 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

_{link to the discussion in question --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)}

WP:Aspersions are repeated claims of wrongdoing without evidence, not a single one. If somebody is claiming something that you think requires evidence, ask them to provide evidence. If they are unable to do so, then tell them they cannot repeat such claims without evidence. nableezy - 17:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that User:RadioKAOS did not cover themselves with glory in that discussion, but AingGF, in another light it sounds like railing against the AfD 'system' rather than directed at any one individual. And it's true that 'enthusiastic amateurs' can flock to school AfDs like moths to a flame occasionally. I think it was a good idea to close it before posting here, though. ——Serial Number 54129 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately this is a recurring issue at AfDs in the radio topic area. AusLondonder (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Good on you. Its the first time I've ever heard anybody being blocked at Afd, ever. It must have been bad. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I read the report about being a bad block. That is unfortunate. I understand your concern. Yip, I would ask for evidence, always. Having done a few radio station Afd's, sometimes they blow up very quickly particularly if its school or university station. I don't think its particularly bad apart from the opening sentence where they takes swinging hit at every editor before moving onto analysis, but without evidence the editor is just gasing at his station going. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• First, though I disagreed with that block you issued, I'm grateful that there are at least a few admins who take civility seriously. Editors, especially long-time productive editors, can get away with a lot of rudeness or passive-aggressive comments and when directed to less experienced editors, it can really serve to intimidate and bully them.

But I think Nableezy makes a good point...I'd look for repeated personal attacks. The editors I see who get blocked who truly deserve it are not ones who make one comment, venting in the heat of the moment, but ones that go on a tear, where every comment is worse than the last. They get themselves into an angry state of mind and NOTHING can seem to stop them from lashing out. I also am wary when editors talk about a conspiracy or "agenda" because those comments show they are out-of-touch with how Wikipedia operates and it could call for a NOTTHERE block. But one comment from an editor who is pissed off that an article they crafted has been brought to AFD? I'd give them some ROPE. I think we can all understand how that might feel. These are just some thoughts I can share but more specifics would be helpful. I also appreciate you (and Doug, above) bringing the issue to AN to ask for second opinions. That doesn't happen often enough, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review of my decision to remove extended confirmed user rights from an editor

See User talk:Doug Weller#Grievance Regarding Revocation of Extended Confirmed User Rights. I thought that this had been amicably settled here[75]but obviously not as User:BlackOrchidd has replied talking about escalating, as is their right. It now seems best for me to ask other opinions. I know I made a mistake is mentioning minor edits as the reason when I removed them, I should have said trivial edits as they clearly weren't what we formally call minor edits. Pinging User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Sean.hoyland as they took part in the discussion on my talk page. As always when I take normal Administrative actions I'm ok with my actions being reversed, I know I'm not perfect. :} Doug Weller talk 07:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This might be something for XRV? --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have revoked EC here. It looks like they've been editing fairly consistently for the last year, so I wouldn't really call that "racing" to get the right, and it doesn't look like they've been making trivial edits for the purpose of gaining EC. (I will note that I'm not a fan of the AI-generated responses, however.) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; there is nothing in their editing history to indicate gaming of the system. Recommend restoration. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. I'll do it in a minute. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for responding. I feel bad about this, hate to mistreat an editor. Hopefully a mistake I won't make again! Doug Weller talk 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Good ending though, the editor gave me the The Admin's Barnstar! Doug Weller talk 08:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Much deserved for more than the reason noted. --ARoseWolf 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Foreigner (film)

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 requested this article for a movie called, The Foreigner, to be semi-protected because someone’s been adding a lot of details when I tried to shorten the summary to wiki plot standards of 400-700 words. Every time I shortened the summary, someone’s been always adding back more details that exceeded over 700 words. I want you to please look over it. Rangertapper (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rangertapper: When raising a thread about an article, you should always say which article that is; so do you mean The Foreigner (2017 film)? I cannot find any protection requests for that article at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (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.

Non-admin edit filter manager request

Hello, a request for edit filter manager access for a non-admin is open at the edit filter noticeboard; input is welcome at the discussion there. Thank you – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DOXXING USERS, Social Media

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

---

This user User talk:Ybsone is Doxxing users, social media accounts of people. You can check Talk Page. Any help from Wiki admins? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look like doxxing, it looks like you have a WP:COI and are attempting to add WP:LINKSPAM to promote a site but masquerading it as references. ybsone is entirely right to question that. Valenciano (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So if I add multiple links to different sites then there's no problem. But as I added only from blog that I read, so it is wrong? Also, Wikipedia allows doxxing user accounts, mails? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be just as much a problem if you were adding spam links to multiple sites. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Right?? Obviously, I am not going to add multiple links. So point is left, how you decide if it is Spam link? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

From the way you were spamming it. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Question the edits, yes, but not post links to social media sites to "prove" that they are someone. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone please block this obvious linkspammer. They have wasted enough time here already. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked as NOTHERE. Enough is enough. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (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.

Revert CV-RevDel

Hello, I recently removed material I believed to include copyright violations at Open Book Collective. I then requested revdel, which was completed. As Flavoursofopen pointed out to me, however, both of the sources were CC BY 4.0, so the material, to my knowledge, should not have been removed given that it included attribution. Can we revert the revdel? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have un-RD'd the content. Nice to see WMF finally made all CC 4.0 variants compatible. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of conduct dispute

Hi, could an administrator please review this discussion regarding a conduct dispute. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admins, please do so. And when you do, be sure to look at the history of the page in question, where it will be seen that User:IOHANNVSVERVS has been editing warring with at least two or three other users, in spite of acknowledging that they are in a contentious topic area. Wp:TE and WP:BATTLE may apply; it's not usually useful to inform editors with 11-years tenure that competence is required!

Talking of competence good faith, and despite the massive orange box in this editing window advising that When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, you did not manage this; I have now done so. ——Serial Number 54129 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

CIR is a valid question whenever an editor argues that the expulsion and flight was nonviolent (and removed the word "violent" from the article), regardless of how old the account is. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But not when an editor removes unsourced political assertions from a CT article per ONUS. ——Serial Number 54129 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: to clarify, from an editorial point of view I agree with the premis; it seems hard to achieve the former without the latter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

One might say that because all expulsion is inherently violent, the "violent" in "violent expulsion" is redundant, and if that were the rationale given, it might not have led to this content dispute. But where the given rationale is that violence wasn't a significant part of the expulsion and flight, well that's just either ignorance or propaganda, and it's alarming when the person claiming the Nakba wasn't violent is accusing others of POV pushing or OR. As someone said on the talk page, let's see an example of a source talking about one of these mythical nonviolent expulsions.

This is one of those examples where on the surface one sees edit warring and a content dispute, but in fact, one person is with the sources and the other person is not -- which in the real world we call "being wrong." And as we all know, "BRIE": being right is everything. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that IOHANNVSVERVS seems to demonstrate battlefield tendencies, but wrt the rest, you're preaching to the choir. Although the term casus belli would be as well used in the article body as well as in the lead—which, remember, doesn't need citations if the assertion is contained in the body. And while a particularly political article such as this might suggest using a citation ('material likely to be challenged' etc), if we were to follow that, then the entire lead would be cited in every sentence. That may or may not be a good thing, of course, but it would attract even more attention, albeit primarily from the MOSheads I guess. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"And while a particularly political article such as this might suggest using a citation ('material likely to be challenged' etc), if we were to follow that, then the entire lead would be cited in every sentence."

Almost every sentence in the six paragraphs of the lead currently does have an inline citation, many of them even have multiple inline citations and with direct quotes from the sources showing undisputably that the content is well sourced - something which seems to be required to prevent unjustified removals like we've seen here.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the information is unsourced is not true; it doesn't have an inline citation but it is doubtlessly supported by the list of references which the article is based on. As I alluded to on the talk page discussion, finding reliable secondary sources for this should be rather trivial, and I highly doubt that either of the editors who are challenging the content have made any effort to find such sources. Neither did the challenging editors provide any RS which would suggest the information is untrue, and indeed I wonder which RS their knowledge of the relevant history is based on. Mistamystery argued that there was an "abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began.", something which, to the best of my knowledge, can only be described as a myth. They were asked to provide a source for this but failed to do so. Although Mistamystery has accused me of OR and seems to be concerned about that, I remember a previous discusion we had together regarding this exact same history, where they objected to my thoroughly cited position, in a response which was entirely citationless actual OR. I also provided two RS in the talk page discussion of this present dispute, one of which was rather weak but the other, though a primary source, definitively supports the content. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And speaking of competence, SN, Iohann did, in fact, notify the editor of this discussion. Your notification was a duplicate. :-) Levivich (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have rephrased. ——Serial Number 54129 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

He notified him on his user talk page. It just didn't use the template but it's in the preceding section. Levivich (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I know. I saw it. That's why I rephrased and told you I had rephrased. I would not have rephrased just on your telling me; that would automatically imply I believed you without checking. And then people might think I thought you were 100% trustworthy. And then they might think so too. And then... god knows. ——Serial Number 54129 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But your rephrasing still says he didn't manage to do something that he did do, which is why I was confused. (And you're right, believing me about anything is a tell-tale sign that someone lacks the necessary competence to edit.) Levivich (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for casting an aspersion. ——Serial Number 54129 15:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say thay I've engaged in edit warring, @Serial Number 54129? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you've been edit warring probably. That usually does the trick. When one edit wars, one becomes an edit warrior. Then, having edit warred and become an edit warrior, one is prone to be described, empirically, and indeed, telelogically, as an edit warrior. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all this a rather unprofessional and uncivil answer don't you think?

Secondly, I forgot that I had violated 1RR which is presumably what you're referring to. That was unintentional and I selfreverted when I was made aware at User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS#1RR violation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not referring to that at all (although I had noticed it, and yes, also your self-revert, which was certainly a fine thing). I said you were edit-warring, not that you had breeched 3RR / 1RR. The policy reminds us that it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Anyway, it seems that a useful discussion is now taking place on the talk page; with Levivich's input, a consensus will no doubt form quickly and civilly enough. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But then what exactly have I done which is edit warring? I'm not following. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the content dispute is trivial. The conduct of Mistamystery is what I'm concerned about here. As I said to them on their talk page: "It's clear that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that your removal and the way in which it was done (no discussion, poor edit summary) was inappropriate. It is reasonable then to suspect that you will likely make furher edits repeating these same mistakes." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First law of holes comes to mind here. Drop it, go make your points on the article Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussing an editor's conduct on the talk page of an article would not be appropriate. I think you're missing the point here and I'm not sure how 'law of holes' applies. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, more unhelpful throw-away comments. This is the right page to request admin attention to something. There is already a discussion on the talk page, which is the thing to which admin attention is requested. Telling someone to "drop it" is stupid when it's in response to a person's first post about something. Iohan is not in any kind of hole, and one revert does not constitute "edit warring" under any definition (plus, it was a good revert, because "no consensus" is never a proper reason to revert an addition).

Meanwhile, this edit and this edit by Mistamystery are rather obvious POV-pushing, specifically of the "whitewashing" variety.

Focus on the beam, not the mote, folks. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Un-cited items were removed from a page, and the filing editor here has done everything (including this tendentious use of AN) but provide appropriate citation to restore what are clearly POV items (including attempting to extort some kind of apology or concession on my talk page instead doing the requested homework).

Everything else seems a tendentious overreach and should be subject to administrative censure for inappropriate use of this noticeboard if this behavior continues. This is not an appropriate venue for an extension of what is clear battleground behavior. Mistamystery (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the removal of content alone. I obviously didn't come to AN immediately after the removal but only after discussing the matter at both the article's talk page and then on this user's personal talk page.

The fact that this user continues to believe their removal was justified and that the content removed was "clearly POV" is the problem here. Especially since I've cited two RS, one of which, though a primary source, definitively supports the content.

They speak of myself as having not done "the requested homework", but they themselves have not provided or made reference to a single RS throughout these discussions, despite being asked to do so.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've now provided a pretty definitive secondary source [76] to support the challenged content, but this has not been accepted either, nor sensibly responded to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to lift the contentious topics page sanctions on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton

I am requesting that we lift the contentious topics page on these two articles. I support Bill Clinton's being removed and weakly support removing Hillary Clinton's. I feel that we are at a point in time where the majority of post-1992 American politics sanctions are usually for pages related to Trump and Biden. Bill Clinton's article doesn't seem to get much disruption other than simple vandalism and test edits. Hillary Clinton's article, while there has been some disruption, has been minimal to an extent, but not as much as high-profile articles like Trump and Biden which is why I say weak support. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I think in this way, this would be a major step towards pushing the date where American politics that is not current anymore is not sanctioned anymore to say 2000 (maybe 2008 or 2016, but would not go beyond that). I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely this is outside our remit - it's an ArbCom matter. Related pages: Wikipedia:Contentious topics, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think a case would need to be opened- and if done it shouldn't be limited to Bill and HRC, it should discuss moving up the year in general. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Appeals_and_amendments and it said that I can appeal on this noticeboard. Unless I read the page completely wrong, I believe I did the right thing here. Interstellarity (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not think lifting CTOPS from the Clintons is a good idea. We still have some recent disruption over at Clinton body count conspiracy theory and don't forget the Jeffrey Epstein links. Especially with this being a presidential year, and with Trump looking for a foil, I imagine we'll see more negativity in U.S. politics involving the Clintons in 2024. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The original decision to place these articles under "contentious topics" restrictions wasn't made by a single admin, but was an arbcom decision. Therefore, only ArbCom can modify it, and the place to ask is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. They are literally on the campaign trail. BD2412 T 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Last night, in fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That link also says "Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.", which you don't seem to have used. – 2804:F1...75:DAC1 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this has since been recreated at WP:AE, with the template. So I guess we can stop replying here. – 2804:F1...75:DAC1 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think CTOPs are a topic, not specific pages. Even if a page is unmarked with the CTOP talk page template, edits on it that fall within the CTOP topic can still result in {{Alert}}s, WP:AE, etc.

The CTOP you're talking about, I think, is "post-1992 American politics". I think the correct way to request a change in scope (for example, changing it to "post-2017 American politics", which would exclude Hillary's presidential run in 2016) is WP:ARCA. Although I don't recommend it. I think post-1992 is a good scope, and post-2017 would be too narrow. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

1992 is, of course, the year that Bill Clinton was first elected president, and he appeared with Barack Obama and Joe Biden at a fundraising event yesterday that took in $25,000,000. That is a lot of money, about one seventh of the annual revenue of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example. I oppose any change to the 1992 date. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Parallel drafts of Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali and their talk pages

Draft:Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali (now moved to Draft:Ramgarh Hills) also has a deleted parallel version. Its talk page goes with the deleted version, so I did not move it. The deleted version (created by an IP user at 14:20, 9 November 2023) needs to be undeleted. Also, Talk:Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali (the talk page for the other version of the draft) needs to be undeleted and moved to Draft talk:Ramgarh Hills. GTrang (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A quick look shows it’s been edited by several socks and several IPs who are probably block evading. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

IP unblock request

Hi. Hope this is the right place for this, I was sent here from a help page. To briefly explain my situation, I am a high schooler and the only way, aside from my phone, that I can edit Wikipedia is through a laptop given to me by my school. The issue is that the school uses Securly to block unsafe websites which also functions as a VPN. I tried to make an edit a while back only to discover the IP address was blocked by User:Materialscientist with the reason given “Securly is basically a VPN, but likely limited to PCs of a given ‘school’” Looking through the edits from that IP address I don’t recognize any as mine so I think it was either blocked preemptively or after an edit by another user. I know that open proxies generally aren’t allowed but I read that exceptions can be made for editors who can’t edit without a VPN, though I’m not sure if I would qualify for that. I’ve since made this account (from my phone) and have made some minor edits on here (and a few on my phone and a few on my laptop before I got a block message again) but I have been quite limited as to what I can do on mobile. I hope you can see from my edits that I’m genuine in trying to improve Wikipedia and will consider my request.

Thanks, Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion: This shouldn't be requested at AN, but rather by following the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY and emailing the CheckUser team. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah my bad. Thanks for the help :) Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion: I can address some of that here. Securly (at least the parts that I'm familiar with) is only anon-blocked which means that logged-in users can edit. As for why it's anonblocked? Imagine funnelling all the kids in all the schools through a small set of IP addresses. There's going to be problems. That's why we need to raise the bar a little and require accounts. If you get repeatedly hit by autoblocks, caused by other people, repeatedly, you're going to need a bit of history to distinguish yourself from your vandal schoolmates. Otherwise, autoblocks are not usually too bad, and I'd say you have the opportunity to make some edits, if you're logged-in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh, it seems to be on and off blocking me but I'm able to make edits here (laptop) again so I guess I won't stress about it. I can definitely see the issues with a bunch of high schoolers able to hide behind a VPN. I appreciate the help. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Kryako personal attacks

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

---

On the Talk:Kingdom of Kush#Reference to "Noba Invasions", there were two editors, @Kryako and @Jedorton, both engaged in personal attacks. I have been notified by Jedorton who seems to instigate the incident. I warned Jedorton on his talk page, and on my talk they stated that they will not engage in something similar again. Although they still to amend their comments. However, Kryako doubled down and called the other editor a “racist” (among other words). I gave them a chance to rephrase their opinion without personal attacks but they refused. Giving their dismissal of basic policies and their refusal to back down, I recommend @Kryako editor be blocked for attacking another editor and not adhering to such basic principle. Same goes for the other edit if they did jot amend their comments. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Both users are attacking each other in clear violation of the NPA policy, but it looks like it may be winding down, so I'm not sure blocking serves an effective purpose just yet. I've given them a final warning on the talk page that any subsequent attacks are going to result in an immediate block without warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, they both retracted their comments. So, it is safe to assume they both realised their mistake, and we can consider this matter closed with that final warning. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2024 (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.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued questionable editing by Orange sticker

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 above user flagged an article for deletion on 22 March. [77]

An admin decided that the deletion nomination had been incorrectly formatted and the article was again re-nominated for deletion. The conclusion was to re-direct the content to the parent Liverpool and Liverpool City Region articles. It was felt that there was no need for a separate article. [78]

I conceded to this as author of the article and was happy to agree that at this moment in time there was no need for a separate article.

The above user then resorted to delete whole sections from the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region articles without any consensus. See [79] and [80]. I reverted those edits and asked her to build consensus.

I feel that she has twisted the outcome of the AfD and has misinterpreted its conclusion. I understand that the outcome of the AfD was that there was no need for a separate article but to merge and re-direct its content to parent articles.

Unhappy with my edit reverts, the above user has now resorted to installing templates which attempt to discredit the content and citations. See [81] and [82].

I can assure the admins that I have very carefully selected these citations myself and have argued at length for their inclusion. The above user will not stop but to discredit their inclusion and I feel that she has twisted the outcome of the AfD.

I have previously flagged this user here but no action was taken previously. Her latest behaviour I feel should be given attention.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: previous ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Uncivil and biased behaviour by user Orange sticker. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know whether to open a new discussion or re-open the old one. The last ANI report resulted in no action and was archived. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just linking it here for convenience in case anyone wanted to look at the previous thread. there isn't a way to re-open old discussions once they are archived. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are probably in the wrong noticeboard for this complaint. But that being said I'd suggest the demonym section of that article deserves the citation check tag. It seems WP:UNDUE to spend quite that much space on the demonym, especially considering how many of the citations make only passing reference to the demonym. About all the citations really seem to say is that politicians would prefer a broader demonym and one activist citizen has been campaigning to make it kind of official but it seems most of the local citizenry can't be bothered. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That is why its inclusion has been very carefully worded. The above user is attempting to discredit its inclusion at every step of the way. There is also content which provided reliable citations. The term Scouser has its basis in the mid 20th century. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly still a simple content dispute and, as on the AN/I thread I would strongly recommend addressing it as a content dispute. Please WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The simple fact is that this user attempted to delete a whole section before consulting the Talk Page. She has now resorted to citing the harrassment guidance. This is casting aspersions on my contribution to the encyclopedia. I have already considerably taken on board the AfD. She may well dispute its credibility but the way in which this user is attempting to do so warrants attention. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, and as a dispassionate and uninvolved editor, if a section that long based on sources that weak were added to an article on my watchlist I might also use WP:TNT on it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Liverpool demonym section as it stands now - is only being disputed by one editor - continuously. She already successfully had an entirely separate article on the subject deleted. She is persistent to continue this discussion. I thought there was a policy on Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

I have already conceded that there is no need for an entirely separate article. But this user is content to delete any mention of other demonyms completely from the encyclopedia. Therefore, this is not a neutral point of view since there would be no mention that the Scouse demonym is based on the mid 20th century. There is a serious risk that the demonym section will not based on a neutral point of view if this user makes unreliable edits.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See her attempt to completely remove any mention of other demonyms that are steeped in historical fact. [83]

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am deleting parts that are not neutral such as those which include references to articles which are about the editor themselves, questionnaires they carried out, or interviews they took part in. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but has Liverpolitan1980 self-identified as a subject of the demonym section? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure how to approach this without revealing someone's identity but I'm now seen clear evidence off-wiki that this is possible WP:COI/WP:ADVOCACY. Orange sticker (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I give up. I am deleting this account. Completely not worth it. All my contributions have been in the best of faith. It is clear that this subject means a lot to you Orange Sticker and you will resort to any length to achieve that. I am out. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry to hear that, if you could address your bias you have the qualities of a really good editor. But obviously I've googled the term 'Liverpolitan' and it's not hard at all to see your many connections to it over the years. Orange sticker (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - WP:OWN.

This is the second time this user has tried to report me to admins because he doesn't agree with my edits. He also makes multiple replies to any comments I make and immediate reverts to my edits. I would like this editor to read WP:HARRASS and consider their actions. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not harrassment, but contribution. It is you that keeps deleting my contribution. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted any contributions that you have made that I find to be poor quality and in this most recent case, very lengthy discussions had taken place which reached consensus that the article I flagged for deletion failed numerous standards, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DICDEF and WP:FRINGE. Instead of improving your article, you copied parts of them to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region with the issues still present. I deleted these sections, you reverted my edit, I then added Template:Cite_check_section. You then reported me to this noticeboard. Nothing about my conduct warrants this action. Orange sticker (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You have also copied another editor's comment on the Liverpool Talk page along with their signature.

This editor has not consented for their comment to be on the Talk page.

See...[84] Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In actual fact, the editor's comment which you have re-posted - without their consent - agrees to a re-direct to the Liverpool article. He mentions that an WP:ATD has gained acceptance. The term "Liverpolitan" is now discussed among others. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion is also completely disingenuous. I have considerably reduced the inclusion of the Liverpolitan term and they have been significantly edited as per the discussion. I made it perfectly clear within the AfD discussion that I would take the most notable parts for inclusion in to the Liverpool article. You still seem very very unhappy about this. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That was an error which I apologised for. I pasted the Admin's AfD decision into a talk page because you have read it, and the numerous comments in the AfD discussion calling for deletion or massive improvement to your article, and somehow are still ignoring all criticism. You have decided that there was nothing wrong with the content of your article, despite editors taking time to examine your many references one by one, and moved this content to other articles. Until you address the issues I listed above, your contributions on this subject do not have a place on Wikipedia, as agreed by multiple editors. Orange sticker (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Completely disingenuous. As you can see from my contribution to the AfD. I have considerably compromidsed on this. It is you that has not compeomised and continue to discredit the contrbution. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Admins and editors had to ask you to modify your conduct in the AfD discussion, and went so far as to hide two of your responses. I once again urge you to take a step back, remember that most editors are here to ensure Wikipedia is a high quality and trusted resource, and there are some topics which you might personally be too close to to be able to contribute to dispassionately and objectively. Orange sticker (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am focussed on the subject - as are you. Of course the encyclopedia is open to anyone. It is you that is attempting to take my contributions off and are doing so persistently. As well as re-posting other editor's comments on to other pages with their signatures in tact - without their consent. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (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.

Deletion discussion

I decided to join in on the fun of making "joke" deletion discussions for April Fools, making one for Loreen. It is currently on my talk page, can anyone move it to the deletion discussions and add the joke and April Fools templates? 92.249.183.225 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

April Fools jokes are not allowed to affect articles.-Gadfium (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've seen multiple "joke" deletion discussions, like one for one of the F1 seasons. - 92.249.183.225 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, April Fools "jokes" on Wikipedia are inherently lame, not funny in the context of building an encyclopedia, and ought to be phased out based on social disapproval rather than administrative action. I have been around long enough to remember when the creepy sexist Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan character was commonplace throughout Wikipedia. We've outgrown Wikipe-tan, and it is time to outgrow crappy April Fools jokes, which are often puerile and rarely funny. Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still creepy and I came across one yesterday, unfortunately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

At least one of these happens every year that I have seen. Copyrighted song lyrics always end up in at least one joke AFD. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I possess some sort of unusually virtuous monastic constitution, but when I see a line drawing of a girl, I am not overcome by any sort of paraoxysmic passions, so I would object to a drawing of a girl being called creepy *ipso facto*. Perhaps it could more accurately be called "creepy to people besides JPxG" or "creepy to people unfamiliar with Japanese cartoons". jp×g🗯️ 12:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

[85] --JBL (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. NebY (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Guy on some rap record label is obsessively adding himself to the page and reverting anyone who reverts him "vandalism"

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.

---

Not really sure how this works but take a look at Opium (record label)... this guy keeps adding himself in, seeming to use both an account AND ip address to do so, and his only 'source' is some apple music page he presumably made himself that claims hes on this very big well-respected rap label. He obsessively reverts everyone who deletes this nonsense. Im not sure hown this can be handled personally. Im not too experienced but I figure someone can step in so the viewers can not get the wrong information about this page 158.140.53.34 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for either : 3RR, vandalism or promotional editing - take your pick. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The account that he made is over here at User:Snvrk.... this dude picked the dumbest rap name ive ever seen. On that account he was seen doing the same thing, shameless self-promotion and lying about labels hes not actually on. Even tried making a article for himself, if u read the history he was vandalizing the Opium (record label) page back in december, and kept trying to add himself back then too. So I guess this is repeat pattern

...Also look at his talk page he has been given SO MANY warnings and clarity to stop doing this stupid self-promotion. I know you blocked his IP but I think that account finally needs to be blocked as well since this dude doesnt take a hint

• Hmm I don't know if it's the dumbest rap name--I think it's kind of funny. Not sure why he's flipping off the viewer on his Insta but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (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.

My joke deletion discussion got deleted for "vandalism"

Draft:Loreen april fools deletion. WP:APRILFOOLS literally says they're allowed, you just need to clarify it's a joke. 92.249.183.225 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to consider the deletion a joke too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This is probs s'posed to be used on user talk pages but whatever. Made me laugh out loud.

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The person behind this IP address has made 29 edits about this ridiculous nonsense. Imagine if that keyboard clicking and mental energy had been expended on something productive instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Using talk page edits to gain Extended Protected Article editing rights

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.

---

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

Hello,

While browsing through several articles, I have noticed edits made by User:Wayfarer Pacifist. Upon closely examining their contributions, I observed that they have used hundreds of talk page edits to surpass the limit of 500 edits required to gain editing rights for protected articles. (Please take a look at their edit history Here.) I suspect that the user might be using a sockpuppet account based on their revert and editing behavior like an experienced editor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. RWILD✉ 09:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor at AN, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have notified Wayfarer Pacificst for you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Revoked, though user is also CU indeffed, so really nothing else to do here. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:23, 2 April 2024 (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.

Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals

Pending in the Wikipedia:Requested moves backlog now are a half dozen separate move requests, mostly multi-moves, encompassing 55 articles on the names of royal figures, all seeking to remove specific regional or national identifiers from the names (e.g., "Charles XII of Sweden → Charles XII"; "Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Pharasmanes III"). These discussions have all drawn heavy participation, and spirited debate. In my experience, any close is going to draw furious objections by those who disagree with the outcome, so I think it behooves us to come up with a plan for closing all of these. My reading of the discussions is that there is an absence of clear consensus for any of the proposed moves, but I am open to differing interpretations. BD2412 T 17:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think just closing them all as no consensus would probably be for the best. I'm staying away from those moves though, since the last time I closed one of those types of moves I ended up dragged to move review. I doubt it will be much different for whoever ends up closing these. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly my concern — that the discourse has become so divided that no admin will want to clear these out of the backlog. BD2412 T 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand the issue myself, although admittedly I'm biased as I support the moves. The community held an RFC on this issue in the autumn, and the updated guideline is clear that such disambiguation isn't needed when the monarchs in question are already and indisputably the primary topic. Noting also that the proposed names are fairly clear WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE examples too. It's possible the consistent opposition means the RFC result should be revisited, but I don't think relitigating it in individual RMs is the way to do. The overarching point is that per WP:NOTAVOTE, move requests are decided not through counting heads but through evidenced and policy/guideline compliant comments. @BD2412 and EggRoll97: since you seem to think there's a case for closing as no consensus, please could you explain how the oppose !votes stand up when viewed through the lens of policy?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

While I am not here to argue for a specific outcome, I would note that WP:COMMONNAME (being argued by some opposers in some discussions) generally trumps technical guidelines. Of course, WP:COMMONNAME discussions then become focused on evidence of external usage, which these have not particularly, which is disappointing. BD2412 T 15:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into the nitty gritty of the matter and having the argument spill into this page, I'd simply say that COMMONNAME arguments shouldn't be taken at face value if they come without supporting evidence. At Talk:Edward V of England I see opposers arguing COMMONNAME, yet when you look at an ngram [86] you see that the shorter form is overwhelmingly more common in book sources. I just think it would be an incredible let down for these to all be closed as "no consensus" when really what's needed is an uninvolved admin to cut through the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and actually simply enforce the RFC that opined on this matter at WP:NCROY. Like where would we even go next if it's deemed no consensus? Would this invalidate the updated guideline? I have no clue.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem, frankly, is not the strength of the arguments but the strength of the divide. I think we need a community solution to close these in a definitive way, that leads to finality. BD2412 T 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If someone is being a pain in the ass, they can be topic banned or partially blocked. Topic bans would require community consensus, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any specific editor whose behavior is beyond the pale. What I am certain of, however, is that editors on whichever side is deemed the "losing" side of the discussion will be certain that the close was wrong. I am also a bit concerned about uniformity across these myriad similar discussions. BD2412 T 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Another point that, IMO, will need to be taken into account is that a fair number of MRs to remove "of country", at which exactly the same arguments were made by both sides, have been closed recently (mostly moved, a few no consensus) and may need to be revisited in any "holistic solution". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Resignation

I resign my seat on ArbCom with immediate effect. To all those who voted for me - I'm sorry I wasn't the arbitrator either of us hoped I'd be. GeneralNotability (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation

I am not sorry as it is your decision but please take care of yourself. Btw, i. Might the one who voted for you. DIVINE 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Revocation of Mschwartz1's extended-confirmed permission

The Arbitration Committee makes the following update to its 20 March announcement:

Mschwartz1 (talk · contribs)'s extended-confirmed permission is revoked as they did not meet the Arbitration Committee's expectations when the request for the permission was granted. The Committee apologises for the time spent by the wider Community on this affair.

Guerillero is recused from consideration of this matter.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Revocation of Mschwartz1's extended-confirmed permission

Redirect creation caught in sock filter

Was tryin to create a redirect from Pawan Kumar Chamling ministry to Fifth Chamling ministry but it got cauht in a title filter. Please see if the redirect can be created. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotitbro, I've removed the entry from the title blacklist as it's no longer necessary, so you should be able to create the redirect now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Loukus999

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 just read what seems to be very creative writing by @Loukus999. Someone should keep an eye on his edits and review his past history. I don't have neither the time nor energy to comb through his contributions. GusChago (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gachago: You've failed to notify Loukus999 and you've provided zero evidence in support of your complaint. Plus, this should have been filed at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 OKKKKKKK GusChago (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2024 (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: SunnyMeadows90

This user has been known to trying to push false information and a narrative that is indicative from cited or official sources.

I am talking on the behalf of one of the admins and representatives for the "101 Dalmatian Street" wiki on the fandom wiki site.

We do not use Wikipedia.org more than the cited sources that have been documented. We are here to plea for the ban and removal of the page created by the user SunnyMeadows90. For several months, they have been vandalizing the Wikis listed above, and now, after being denied by the 101 Dalmatians community and multiple times by the admins on the fandom wiki, has begun to create their own page on Wikipedia.

The user SunnyMeadows90 has been making edits to articles related to the "101 Dalmatians" Franchise, under the proclamation that their Fan Ideas are more valid than Official, Cited Sources.

Not only have they been vandalizing the site, but several members of the community have been harassed and even threatened with violence, for not accepting this user's head canon as objective fact. Example 1,( (Redacted) ) Example 2, ((Redacted) )

These actions can be seen as a violation of Wikipedia's Policies on Vandalism, Hoaxes and Fictitious references (Self-Published Sources are not accepted as Valid Citation); As well as a violation of Wikipedia's policies on Harassment.

The page in question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SunnyMeadows90/sandbox

We are here to plead for the ban and termination for user (SunnyMeadows90, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunnyMeadows90&action=info )

Many other 101 Dalmatians creators and community members are extremely concerned about the false information this user has been trying to propagate.

This user has engaged in a months-long campaign spreading their misinformation and harassment of members of the community who contradict them. Please stop this individual from continued harassment and lies. Polyarc12 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This dispute appears unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. I have redacted the personal information added above, and deleted User:SunnyMeadows90/sandbox as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. – bradv 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Need a revdel of some unkind WP:BLP violations at article talk for Naomi Wu

This comment is grossly inappropriate, violates WP:BLP standards and like half a dozen other Wikipedia policies. Can we get it removed please? Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Plz don't post this on noticeboard, contact admin 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

request for notification disabling

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

---

I've made an account called User:MyUserPage to redirect people to their own userpage. However, I accidentally enabled push notifications on it. Since I've forgotten the password, how can I disable them? Usersnipedname (nag me/stalk me) 11:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname I am thoroughly confused as to why you would create that, given that it doesn't work as a redirect and we already have a way to get to your own user page (indeed it is the special page you link to). As for "push notifications", I'm not sure what you mean - if you mean emails, if you have an email address attached to the account you can reset the password that way. firefly ( t · c ) 17:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

They created it because they're continuing the WP:CIR edits that led them to be blocked as What is this username?.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 6 April 2024 (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.

Harv errors

I can't seem to remember who showed me harv errors, what to install to see them, specifically to do when I was editing Tottenham season pages. (As I was creating harv errors without knowing!) It seems it maybe very niche topic, because I asked a question at WT:Football, because I could see an error message coming up on Jimmy Greaves on a book citation, related to somewhere on the article, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. But I thought it was one of the admins that knew about them, that showed me. Any help to help me understand what's going on at Jimmy Greaves article, why I am seeing it, to fix it. Be much appreciated. Regards. Govvy (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. The script for seeing harv errors is User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. I'm pretty sure the issue at Greaves is that the book citation doesn't belong in Further reading. You may want to create a "Works cited" section for it.

FYI, this sort of question would be best suited to the WP:Help desk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried adding harvid, not sure if I need to drop the nb or if I need to maybe switch over every harvard citation to sfn format. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: If you want, I could probably get around to swapping them for sfns tomorrow UTC if you want a hand; I've always found harvid clunky on its own. Up to you! ——Serial Number 54129 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's what FFF said: the {{citation}} target of a {{harvnb}} was in "Further reading" instead of somewhere else. I moved it to "Works cited" section. It would still have shown an error if the harvnb was an sfn instead; this was about the citation template being in the wrong section.

BTW I don't know who programs harv errors but it would be helpful if the error message gave the reason for the error. It's a good error (alerting editors when a citation is in the further reading section) but could be a better error message. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: It seems odd that it allows one header, but not another, yep, not exactly clear on the error messages, cheers btw. Govvy (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The only system generated error message is the one that says the reference has no target, the others are a product of the userscript. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of harv errors, I saw the tag in an edit summary recently and had no idea what it was for. Surprisingly, the list at Special:Tags has no information on them. It looks like it is used by Special:AbuseFilter/1254, but I don't know if there are any others. If someone could add a description at MediaWiki:Tag-harv-error-description using the {{Tag description}} template, that would be great. If nobody knowledgeable has access to edit the MediaWiki namespace, you can write a description and which edit filters use the tag here and I can copy it over. (courtesy pings to script authors - @Trappist the monk and Ucucha: ) The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither Module:Footnotes nor User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors have anything to do with the abuse filter except that the author of the filter uses the module's error output to trigger the filter.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I'm just trying to get an understanding/description of what harv errors are so we can have the edit filter documented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Harv error messages have a help link to Category:Harv and Sfn template errors to where the error messaging is documented.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

At Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading, I see a harv error that just says "Harv error: linked from CITEREFGreavesScott2004" with no link, and that error doesn't seem to be documented at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors as it's neither a no-target error nor a multiple-target, but a custom user script error, specifically it's at line 83 of TTM's script.

@Trappist the monk, what do you think of modifying line 83 of User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to say something more descriptive like "Harvard citations pointing to citerefs in inappropriate article sections"? Levivich (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: the error at Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading is because a source used by harv/sfn refs has been placed in Further reading, instead of Sources or Works cited. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Those days when you can't get off the roundabout! Or even remember what exit to take! heh. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Harv error: misplaced citation: linked from "CITEREF...YYYY"?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something that more specifically tells the editor the problem is which section it's in? Like, "Citation in wrong section" or something like that? Levivich (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or "citation in inappropriate section"? Levivich (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The terms wrong and inappropriate seem unnecessarily hostile.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. "Citation in incorrect section"? Or "citation in further reading, external links, or publication section"? Levivich (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How about "differently right" if "wrong" is no longer allowed? DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What you were seeing at Jimmy Greaves (Special:Permalink/1216928758#Further reading) is Not a "harv error"; it's a "harv warning", and it reads "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreaves1979." These warnings are often seen where there's items that fit the format required for Harvard citations that are not actually used as a citation in the article. It's okay to leave these alone, but if you want to make the warning go away you can add the code |ref=none to the citation template to prevent the creation of the anchor. Here is how I fixed Jimmy Greaves for example. See Template:Cite book#Anchor for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments?

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

Per https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13444&sid=6a36c41186b953e95c1930d77476b218 and the ongoing discussion at WT:BLP; it looks like the OP of the thread at said talk page (or at least somebody with the same username and writing style, and the user later admitted it was him) made a thread over at the ol' 'ocracy in which he said he was "requesting eyes on a topic". Now, I'm not saying Wikipediocracy needs to be burned to the ground or whatever, but I really don't think people should be allowed to blatantly call in air support from other websites like this.

What the hell? Is this blockable? It doesn't seem quite clear to me what the official guidance is here. It's one thing for somebody to have an account on another website but it's another thing for them to do it openly, with the same username, and be asking people to come back them up in arguments. (I mean, if this is allowed, let me know, because it would make my life and my own wiki-arguing a lot easier, but my understanding is that it's not) jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly "and call in air support" and "be asking people to come back them up in arguments." are complete misrepresentations of what I posted on the forum. I opened the post with a neutral request saying “Hello everyone. I’m requesting eyes on a topic on the BLP noticeboard regarding Wikipedia publishing the home addresses of notable individuals, and concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them.” They may well have disagreed with my argument and not backed me up, because I never asked anyone to back me up.

At no point did I try to influence anyone, I just requested they have a look; and WP:CANVAS says “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way” and WP:MEAT says “Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate”.

Neither are these apply, as I neutrally asked for eyes on a BLP debate I opened, and didn’t try to influence anyone. There is nothing wrong with airing valid criticism of Wikipedia, and everything I have said on that site, I would also say on Wikipedia, so I have no shame in using the same username, in fact I think it’s more commendable to do so. Furthermore, in a later post, I applauded others editors response to their common-sense approach the issue I raised. I am using Wikipediocracy responsibly to give light to valid concerns I have with Wikipedia, and not using it in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook, you've made no fewer than 15 edits to your comments here. You'd do better to work on your comments using a tool outside of Wikipedia (such as a word processor) rather than endlessly editing your material here and making it very hard for anyone else to chime in. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think I’m done, I just don’t like being misrepresented, and painted to look like I act in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it's blatant canvassing. You posted your own POV to an non-neutral external site. I don't know how you can perceive that as a neutral request. Polyamorph (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) changed from non-neutral to external, see WP:STEALTH

What the heck would a 'neutral website' look like? Who would determine whether it was 'neutral' or not? Clearly, Wikipedia is in no position whatsoever to make such a determination - that would be absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual Wikipedia article for Wikipediocracy starts off with “Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia.”. The consensus on Wikipedia is that it’s just for criticism of Wikipedia, which is what I did when criticising the doxxing of notable individuals. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What the 'consensus on Wikipedia is' (whatever that is supposed to mean) is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is in no position to decide what is or isn't 'neutral' on external websites. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise to you and Black Kite for stating it like that - as you will see I struck the offending word. My point was only that it was blatant off-wiki canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said below, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean 'blatant off-wiki criticism'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see, I interpret the "request for eyes" as a blatant request for input. But YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My post was a criticism of Wikipedia, so I posted it in the appropriate location- a criticism of Wikipedia forum. How is this not the right place to post it? Black Kite said before “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I did it per WP:APPNOTE to post a notification in a centralised location to “draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion”. Which part says I can’t post my POV in the post? They would’ve clicked the link and seen it anyway? All the same, it wasn’t in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Per APPNOTE, the notification must be neutral. Including your POV is makes it non-neutral. APPNOTE also applies to on-wiki locations, it specifically mentions off-wiki communication as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

However, WP:STEALTH is only “strongly discouraged”, and not “disallowed”, as per “other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged”. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged. This means please don't do it. And please don't then argue semantics when you get challenged for doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

But also, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote above please don't then argue semantics. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral, I didn’t ask anyone to join in , I only asked them to look; and it contained what they would’ve seen if they clicked the link. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's hard to believe that you didn't think/hope some of them would take part. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite said below “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your story is changing by the minute. Polyamorph (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How so? I notified critics of Wikipedia to look at my criticism of Wikipedia, and didn’t ask them to join in. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire thread seems to be based on the dubious premise that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called. As anyone who has actually read the endless debates on Wikipediocracy will be aware, this notion is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, whilst WPO is a criticism site, that does not mean that there is not also constructive criticism, and indeed it has helped to highlight improvements that can be made to articles on a number of occasions (disclosure: I post there). Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The only premise is that there was off-wiki canvassing to a specific thread. The idea that it was not actually canvassing, and is in fact valid criticism, was only raised once AndyTheGrump mentioned it. I find that premise to be completely unbelievable. But as I said, YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I refuted that this was canvassing (as this was the initial accusation) first in my initial reply, and in the reply on the BLP talk page. The subtitle in the BLP talk page is “The creator of this thread seems to have opened a thread on Wikipediocracy to canvass people to this discussion” TheSpacebook (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree, which is why I joined. I refute all labels that this was canvassing, as WP:CANVASS says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus and that Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way and WP:MEAT says do not recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate TheSpacebook (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my above comment, which was alarmingly deleted by editor @Randy Kryn: (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216704820&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1): Labelling this canvassing doesn’t apply here as the not everyone on Wikipediocracy share the same view on everything. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit unconvinced by the use of "non-neutral site" there. Would it have been any different if, for example, they had posted it to WP:BLP/N instead? I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted). We have long tolerated those types of things as long as the notification itself is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral and contained the text they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. Furthermore, in my post I requested EYES, I didn’t request FINGERS for anyone to actually join in the discussion. I just asked them to look at it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You think that making a BLPN thread titled "Doxxipedia: The Publication of Living People’s Private Home Addresses" [sic] would not have neutrality issues? Even if didn't, there is a difference: BLPN is a part of Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy is not. People who see a bunch of editors showing up somewhere all at the same time, if they were linked from somewhere onwiki, have the ability to go find where they came from, and see whether it is neutral. Here, not only was the notice done on an external site, it was done on an external site with no notice. And Wikipediocracy is not only an external blog, but also external blog that frequently publishes invective about BLP policies. I am not saying they are always wrong, but it seems to me basically impossible to argue that they are neutral. I agree with Cory Doctorow's opinions in re most all copyright issues, but I think we all know it would be a crock of BS for me to start an argument about NFCC and then go link it to his blog's comment section with the title "CopyrightTrollpedia: Hysteria Over Fair Use". Yes? jp×g🗯️ 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, the title was just used to be eye-catching. However, I think that Wikipedia should engage more with Wikipediocracy, and have some bridge- and make it generally more acceptable to use both (in good faith, which is what I’ve only ever used it for), to bridge the gap over between the sites and allow for dialogue so its not penalised on an Admin noticeboard. Wikipedia will only be made better if it allowed room for criticism. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy, and those who participate there, are under no obligation whatsoever to be 'neutral' by any particular definition - and certainly not by one coming from Wikipedia. Criticism isn't supposed to be 'neutral', whatever that is supposed to mean. It is, if it is any good, based around the principle that one ideally assesses whatever one is criticising first, and only then forms an opinion. If the opinion is that the subject one is criticising is a festering heap of ordure one should say so. Likewise, if one thinks that the subject being discussed is the most wonderful enterprise ever concocted by intelligent life, one should do the same. As for criticism of Wikipedia BLP policy on Wikipediocracy, I'd have to suggest that a great deal of it - almost certainly the majority - is focussed on the failure of the project to actually hold to the policy it proscribes. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd like to hear it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What is 'allowed at Wikipediocracy' is solely determined by those who run the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry -- I mean "are people allowed by Wikipedia to do this", obviously the jannies of another site can run it however they please. Like, "are people allowed to take nominate pics at FPC they took while drunk driving" -- well of course the car and the camera allow them to do this, that's not really the issue, the issue is whether we do. jp×g🗯️ 15:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking whether Wikipedia contributors should be permitted to criticise the project on external websites? I sincerely hope not. I didn't sign up to a democratic centralist organisation, or a religious cult, as far as I'm aware, and if I have, I'd like to know where this is laid down in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely you can see the difference between "posting on a website" and "posting on a website, and opening a thread on that website, to specifically draw attention to the thread on this one, that you also started, and also in both threads you are attempting to argue for a specific policy change"? jp×g🗯️ 17:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Simple question. If the posting in question had occurred on Wikipedia, rather than Wikipediocracy, would you still expect a new contributor to be blocked, rather than warned, for raising an obviously-valid concern over core WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if they had posted a "get a load of THESE dicks" thread to a part of Wikipedia that didn't show up in their contribs, and was at a different URL that wasn't linked to from here, populated almost entirely by outspoken critics of the BLP policy, this would seem to me like an unbelievably obvious open-and-shut example of canvassing. jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook is blocked for one week for canvassing by GeneralNotability, apparently as a regular admin action rather than a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked without discussion? While there is an ongoing discussion on this noticeboard? How exactly was this such an urgent matter that an immediate block was required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I speculate the blocking admin wasn't aware of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then how exactly did they become aware of the issue? This block stinks. Looking beyond some poor phraseology, unsurprising in someone new to Wikipedia, the essential point that TheSpacebook is making both on Wikipediocracy and here is that core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy isn't properly being adhered to. Blocking someone for that is unconscionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... That is clearly canvassing, its a valid block. Why are you taking this to 11 when everyone else was calm and reasonable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the block log the discussion in this thread is cited in the rationale. I'm not sure what "per" means in the rationale. Does it mean the block is intended to be a community action? DeCausa (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'taking it to 11', that would be ArbCom. Which might very well be appropriate if this can't be resolved any other way, since it appears that a contributor has been blocked for pointing out the way Wikipedia's own core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy has been given the run-around through creation of articles on people's homes. Blocking people for pointing out off-Wikipedia that policy hasn't been adhered to cannot possibly be in the interest of the project. Not under any circumstances. Never. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They weren't blocked for that, they were blocked for canvassing. By "11" I was more noting the hyperbole and battleground behavior, which continues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Started writing this earlier, before the block, etc. Hm. I was expecting something more sensational for WPO to be involved. IMO yes, talking about an ongoing on-wiki dispute on Wikipediocracy is bringing it to the attention of a group of people with some known beliefs/attitudes and thus against the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. But we have several long-time users who seem perfectly content to do so, and even to proxy for banned users who post there, so I'm not inclined to commence enforcing such rules with a relatively new user who probably didn't know better.

I haven't looked to see if anyone joined because of WPO (not that doing so would be easy to demonstrate), but if so, I'm more inclined to wag a finger at the group that should know better.

For Spacebook: WPO is where people go who find themselves aggrieved with this or that aspect of Wikipedia, and for those people I get it (if you have an axe to grind or venting to do, and you're not too far detached from reality, you'll probably get a sympathetic ear/encouragement, and people will lend a wiki-cynical hand to help you to contextualize your objections and perhaps event dig up personal information and mock the Wikipedians who were so very wrong at you), but at least wait until consensus forms against you.

Responding to Andy, that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called - for any venue someone considers to be canvassing, you will have members saying this. It is not required that everybody agree or everybody act to understand that there are a variety of well known biases inherent to the forum. I'd be curious to see what correlations there are between posts at WPO and its members' participation in relevant threads over time (that's a desire for someone else to do it, not expressing my own intentions, to be clear).

In this topic area in particular, from what I've seen WPO will generally err on the side of defending BLPs even where (or especially where) Wikipedia's BLP policy does not. Any sort of "get a load of this BLP-related BS on Wikipedia" seems likely to get some encouragement unless it's nonsense on its face -- and that's perhaps the closest I've ever come to giving WPO credit for something (even if being extra cautious on BLP also happens to provide an opportunity for moral highgrounding while simultaneously dunking on Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians). Of course, if the person is themselves a Wikipedian or associated in any way with Wikipedia, they are presumed incompetent/deleterious and their motives insidious, but I digress.

Now seeing the block, IMO it should be converted to a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That reads very much like a 'block for posting on Wikipediocracy' rationale. I don't believe for one minute that if the same 'canvassing' comments had been posted somewhere on Wikipedia itself the end result would have been anything more than a warning. Not for a new user, with an obviously-valid concern regarding core Wikipedia policy regarding WP:BLP privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

...? I said this twice, more or less, in the comment you're replying to, but I did add one of those after-the-fact, so to be unambiguous: I'm in favor of a warning for Spacebook and not a block. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I'd missed that. I was getting edit-conflicts, and may have misread, or misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook has not requested an unblock, I assume that this block would be lifted shorty after they explained that they understood what happened and how to proceed. Blocks are to prevent ongoing issues, not to punish. I think in many ways this sort of block *is* "a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". " I would note that after joining wikipedia this editor made a beeline for the most controversial BLP issues of the day, Catherine, Princess of Wales like a moth to a flame and them made hundreds and hundreds of edits to the topic and related pages... A suggestion for an unblock would be to have them stay away from BLP until they find their feet and understand their way around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So when are we going to clear out Discord etc? If youse want to clear out the Augean stables, 'off-wiki canvassing' goes a fuck sight further than some public noughties-styled bulletin board. ——Serial Number 54129 17:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hush. Do not state the blindingly obvious. If they can't see it, it isn't happening. And everything is wonderful in Wikipedia-land once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think myself, and all of the moderators of the Wikipedia Discord (of which I am not one), would love to be pointed towards instances of canvassing there so that it can be quashed (if such examples exist). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This comments assumes a lot without actual history to back it up. Speaking from experience, I rarely, if ever, see canvassing occurring in the public channels on the Wikipedia Discord server. When it does, we're usually pretty quick to tell a user that it's not allowed. At which point, the user(s) usually delete the link they shared or a moderator removes it and gives a further talking to or ban if necessary. If you think canvassing is occurring on Discord then please do report it to the moderators. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not a moderator on the Discord, but of all the complaints I can imagine about it, "the mods aren't strict enough about shutting down conversations that seem improprietous" is not one of them. Certainly, I have not seen any "fuck sight furthers". jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Given the current nonsense that's going on with ARBPIA and allowing external anonymous POV sources to post in arbitration, imagine my surprise that an Arbitator has blocked this person (and another Arb is involved in the block) for, er, posting externally. Oh, that would be ... no surprise at all. Disgraceful. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  On the face it of it, a one week block for that mildly non-neutral CANVASS at WPO by a newbie seems quite harsh. I suspect it's more to do with their WP:IDHT silly wikilawyering defence of the canvassing in this thread. Only GeneralNotability can say. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it would be good to hear from them, since a block notice of "per this thread" doesn't exactly tell us their thought processes (and why a fairly neutral posting on an external site deserves a block, whereas we don't often block people for posting on-wiki canvassing unless it's particularly egregious). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see from User_talk:GeneralNotability that they don't feel they need to actually bother to post to this thread. Strange one, though ... their first edit or admin action on Wikipedia for 6 days, makes you wonder how they found out about this issue, doesn't it? Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: 10 quid says... reading threads on WPO  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  which would be truly ironic :) Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Having voted yes in General Notability's RFA, I would ask them to consider whether the effect of this block is not more likely to be that folks register at WPO under untraceable pseudonyms, rather than being upfront about who they are. Also I'd thought "more eyes" was Wikipedia-speak for "look at this"... Perhaps the understanding here is that it's a hidden homonym for "Moorize" calling Saracens everywhere to a holy, civilizing action (removing personal addresses from BLP)? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now see from GN's talk page that I was wrong - the block was purely for the WPO canvass and nothing to do with the user's poor response in this thread. Curious. Actually, really strange. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because I'm not talking doesn't mean I'm not listening. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Once I hear from GeneralNotability, to make sure I didn't miss anything important, I plan to unblock. Blocking for a week when it appears from this discussion to be a grey area is unhelpful. So I'd suggest re-focusing away from whether it was a good block or not, and back to whether we want to clarify whether this is OK or not OK in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've unblocked (this was possibly warning-worthy, but not block-worthy), so now they can participate in this discussion again. I am not saying they did right or wrong, I'm saying a block wasn't the answer. Also, they've committed to not revising so much text (to limit the number of edit conflicts for others). Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. As I said in my block review comment, notifying a centralised place where editors would be interested in the discussion is acceptable under WP:CANVAS. Wikipediocracy is not a monolith and has a wide range of differing opinions. However they are critical of Wikipedia, so a notification that I’ve critiqued Wikipedia is an appropriate place for it to be. I copied my original post to the forum, however they would’ve seen the post anyway if they clicked the link. I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers. I didn’t tell anyone to join in the discussion. I still think a dialogue should be made between the two sites to allow for Wikipedia to improve, and not a heavy handed approach whenever Wikipediocracy gets mentioned. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think you should have been blocked and am glad that you are unblocked i think you should be reblocked if you maintain this nonsense. "I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers". Stop the ridiculous pseudo-pedantry - there's no difference, but that's not a problem. Fact is there is nothing wrong with requesting fingers anyway, so long as you do it neutrally. "concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them" is what you needed to have left out. You should acknowledge that you made the (minorish) error of not doing this neutrally and move on. if you don't you should be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Valid. I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• The whole "we don't talk about Wikipedia except on Wikipedia" thing was supposed to have died back in the days of WP:ATTACKSITES. As I pointed out back then, it is unreasonable to expect outside criticism to kowtow to WP regulations, but it's conspicuously perverse to think that people making such criticisms aren't going to point at specific discussions. How could they not do so? I would say that the "requesting eyes" phrase invited a certain reading by the suspicious, but again, how could it not be reasonable on such a site to say, "take a look at this, and here's my opinion"? Looking at the WP discussion in question, I see no sign that any of the WPO regulars have been participants, anyway. I think the anti-canvassing policy is being misconstrued here, and I will also note that this is far from the first such discussion which has been pointed out on WPO, and yet nobody is regularly blocking its known members. There seems to be an element of newbie-biting to this, by the same token. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it could be reasonable to do that, in the hypothetical situation you made up -- I maintain that it's not reasonable to just make a thread there specifically about a talk page discussion you just started, and then express your opinions at length. I mean, do you pledge to support me at AN if I go over the next time I'm getting my ass beat at an RfC amd open a thread called "[inclusionists/deletionists/FACers/anti-FACers/etc]s trying to mess everything up again"?

  (Parenthetical note in re the regulars not getting owned for this: first of all, I never see them do anything this egregious, and second of all, they do get owned, have you forgotten already the extremely dramatic defrocking of Beeblebrox?) jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the two are comparable. I've been an admin here for 17 years and I've posted at WPO for a decade, yet the number of times I've ended up at a discussion purely because of WPO I could probably count on the fingers of one hand (maybe two at a push). And of course, many of the regulars at WPO don't (or can't) post here anyway, so I'm unconvinced that trying canvassing there would be particularly useful anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like blatant canvassing to me. The norm is to post stuff like that on-wiki, to article talk pages or noticeboards, and without commentary. I use the {{Please see}} template for this. Quite a few words have been typed about this, when all we really need to hear is TheSpacebook saying "I'm sorry, I won't do this again". Which really should have been in their unblock request. Instead, an unblock request that ended in Blocking me suppresses criticism in an authoritarian fashion, as a ‘warning not to step out line again’. was accepted. I thought I knew where the canvassing red line was, but perhaps not. I will watch this thread and re-calibrate based on its outcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve acknowledged it here: I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. I won’t do that again. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's ironic that you chose that forum to raise doxing concerns when they just doxed the guy who blocked you. By my count that's three doxed arbs in the last few months, plus a fourth who had his photo posted and appearance made fun of. But tell me again how you went there to raise privacy concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any manner in which this isn't obvious canvassing and with a non-neutral notification to book. Specifically notifying a group well known for harassment of Wikipedia editors, doxing, and other such activities. It's not worth it to even bother at this point in interacting with the people over there, defenders by participants here besides. I tried a decade ago and then realized that the terrible people there, many community banned and serial socking types, exist only to try and make Wikipedia worse and to harm any editors they dislike, particularly if they can manage to dox them and cause real life harm as well. Silverseren^C 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• (ec) A couple of quick notes:
  • it is my understanding that Beeblebrox was not removed for using Wikipediocracy per se, but for saying something that other arbitrators felt was inappropriate.
  • According to a poll at Wikipediocracy, most users there do in fact have a unblocked Wikipedia account. This is self-reporting of course, but perhaps food for thought.
  • At any given time there are usually more guests on the website than logged-in users. I know I used it before I joined to keep track of events in the Grabowski arbitration.

Apart from Wikipediocracy though, I think the canvassing policy could use some clarification. I was recently accused of canvassing for notifying another editor of an ANI about a Portuguese speaker because we are trying to enlist the help of Portuguese speakers. The accusation went nowhere, but I can't say at this moment that I know where the line is, so all the more reason not to block a new user over it. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think:

• It's OK to post a neutral notice of the discussion at Wikipediocracy.
  • I don't recommend it, however -- it's probably not worth the ensuing aggravation.
• It's OK to discuss the issue at Wikipediocracy if one wants to.
  • Like editors here, there are a wide range of personalities participating at Wikipediocracy, some good, some bad.
  • A visitor can sort through the chaff and read some interesting insights there.
  • Regardless about what our official rules may currently say about editor behavior offsite, expect to be held accountable in the Wikipedia court of public opinion for comments made there that would cross a line here.
• It's a mistake to combine a notice with an opinion - that's canvassing.
• It can be expected that readers at Wikipediocracy will skew towards BLP privacy concerns, so one might try to make a case that's forum-shopping even if posting a neutral notice there.
  • Then again, I think the same could be said about the participants at WP:BLPN.
• A tactical error: TheSpacebook argued too much for their own good here. Sometimes you just make your case and leave it to others to have the last word. A bone can get gnawed an awfully long time here.
• The canvassing violation was mild and the editor pretty new. I'm glad this editor is unblocked now.
• Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Genuine question, I haven’t seen the nature of the discussion you are linking to so I don’t know its importance, but how is Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important. not WP:CANVASSING? TheSpacebook (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Two answers:

1. It's hard to say for sure it's not because WP:CANVASSING is vague and somewhat vibes based.

2. But you can usually get a sense of the vibes by the chart at WP:INAPPNOTE.

Sorry this isn't more helpful, I agree that there should be clearer guidelines here. Loki (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the key difference is summarized best in this quote from A.B. "It's a mistake to combine a notice with an opinion - that's canvassing." Note that while A.B. said that the discussion was going on and encouraged participation you wouldn't be able to guess their opinion in that discussion from their comment here. If A.B. had instead said Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important that you support the proposal. that would be canvassing. This is also not a forum where people would be predisposed to feel a sort of way about the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t saying it’s important an opinion though? It’s the same as saying I think it’s important, and the phrase that was deemed objectionable in my case was concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them. At no point did I say concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them, so it’s important you support me. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If it conveys an opinion about the outcome of the discussion which way does "its important" suggest you vote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. That makes perfect sense, thank you for clarifying. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't scientific but my own litmus test for canvassing are these questions: "Can I tell which way this person wants the discussion they're linking to to go from the notice," "Does this venue/forum/page seem like it would primarily frequented by people biased one way or the other," and "Is the scope of the notification reasonable?" (this last one is the hard one and builds off of the second one... For example placing notifications at WikiProject:Israel and WikiProject:MilitaryHistory but not WikiProject:Palestine for a discussion about the ongoing war in Gaza) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my example does not involve Wikipediocracy (although I am a member there). Just me notifying one other editor on their talk page of an ANI discussion for which I considered them an interested party. I think clarification would be good. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I referred to a discussion at WP:BPLN above. I was wrong; the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses. My apologies, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Genuine question again, how is saying Everybody needs to go participate in the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses discussion now. It's important. not WP:CANVASSING, when you’re specifically telling people to participate? TheSpacebook (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's what WP:CANVASSING says:

"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

I did not try to influence the discussion in a particular way. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Like others, I am surprised this is considered a grey area. WP:CANVASS is about soliciting opinions on-wiki: there is a list of appropriate locations given in WP:APPNOTE. Posting off-wiki is (was?) an obvious red line, be it on Wikipediocracy, Reddit, Twitter, or some other site. It would be an issue even if a third party posted it, let alone the initiating editor. Add to that, even on-wiki, posting a request for input titled "Doxxipedia" is obviously not a neutral request, and this is already explicit in guidelines: "neutrally worded with a neutral title". Canvassing off-wiki should receive a very strong warning at the least, and if "is strongly discouraged" (and that for locations which are intended to be areas where just Wikipedia editors communicate) is somehow unclear or grey, it should be stated more plainly. CMD (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I concur that this is unambiguous off-site canvassing, made all the more difficult to take in stride by massive level of IDHT--though thankfully SB seems to be dropping that at this point. On the one hand, I don't think the block was probelmatic (maybe a little harsh in the length, but otherwise valid). On, the other hand, I also don't oppose the unblock to give SB a chance to ammend their approach. However, if they don't adopt an entirely new perspective on this matter and attempt such a "request" again, I'd say a longer term CIR block would be appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

While there is administrator attention on this editor's arguments and edits

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

---

May I request an administrator to revert the move of the article currently at AfD here from the street address at which it was created to its current privacy-violating title? The move was made during the AfD here by Spacebook; the AfD has been unbroken, but I believe the move created a BLP emergency by linking the occupants with the address. It's the new title that I think should be deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

May I just clarify again that I moved the page, as WP:BLPPRIVACY states clearly that articles should not include postal addresses… If you see personal information such as… addresses etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it, because the article for both of the musicians previously read (which I have since removed the address) the couple bought [redacted the actual address], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million. and linked to the property (which was also titled with the address). Furthermore, whilst the article had the address as the title, the body of the article had already named the musicians as the residents (not just the owners, they were named as the residents), saying The house was sold in May 2023 to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, establishing a new record for the most expensive residence sold in California. So with the notable residents named in the article, it is in fact the street address title that you wish to title the article that is the policy-violating one, as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I have also requested oversight for this address to be removed from all page history versions etc. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to Primefac for reverting the move, deleting the new title, and re-fixing the AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Primefac for your fast response to the oversight emails I sent. It is greatly appreciated. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (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.

Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy <redacted>

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.

---

Follow-up question based on the WPO thread started by TheSpacebook titled "Burning of the Space Book: Blocked for "canvassing" for notifying Wikipediocracy about a BLP topic I opened", where some guy did this and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji. jp×g🗯️ 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Making a clarifying note, in light of TheSpacebook editing my comment and the section header(?) -- TheSpacebook did not explicitly quote the post doxing their blocking admin with a clapping emoji -- the dox post was simply (perhaps through a wild and unexplainable coincidence in no way related to them opening the thread to complain about them) the post two posts up the thread from TheSpacebook's clapping emoji. jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re still suggesting I implicitly doxxed someone. As I’ve said I’m against all forms of doxxing, on Wikipedia and on Wikipediocray. This is the sole reason why I suggested the BLP policy change to specifically omit the exact location data of notable individuals homes. I’m against Wikipedia doxxing notable figures and I’m against Wikipediocracy doxxing Wikipedians. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You made that post the morning after I opened this section, at the direct suggestion of somebody posting in it; prior to it being explicitly noted on AN that you had opened and participated in this thread, your reaction to seeing the dox post was (...?) jp×g🗯️ 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

At no point did I give the assistance for doxxing. I have not engaged with any doxxing, and I have not encouraged it. I am not responsible for others that do, and I have not reacted to any doxxing with a “clapping emoji”. I applauded the message that said I was unblocked, as I welcomed the decision made by the admin that unblocked me. I also gave that admin a barnstar to say thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I've noted in many threads before about WPO, many of the editors involved there (that aren't community banned/sockpuppet masters/ect) are admins here. And use that to back themselves up and prevent any action taken against the doxing/outing/harassment done by the rest over there. Collaborators to said harassment, one could say, but they get mad and accuse one of violating civility for pointing out their willing involvement with those trying to bring IRL harm to Wikipedia editors. Silverseren^C 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook, two things. First: please feel free to repress the need to respond to everything. Second, for the love of God STOP THIS. If you can NOT get your comment right the first time, use the Preview button and copyedit/proofread/whatever. And sheesh, you had to throw in another little bit? Stop. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again. I’m responding to things that are about me or address me though. I said I’d stop editing my comments, but I am being blamed for engaging in doxxing, and it’s been alleged that I responded with a “clapping emoji” to a doxx, when I applauded the decision by an admin to unblock me, and also thanked them personally on their talk page. (Comment written and proofread in my notes app). TheSpacebook (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m responding to things that are about me or address me though.

That is not a reason to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a post from a user, that also hasn’t engaged in doxxing, saying Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook; and me replying with a clapping emoji as I welcome the decision, doxxing? Furthermore, saying assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them borders extremely close to a libellous statement, as I did not give any assistance to doxxing. I am not the administrator or owner to that site, so I can’t control what is posted on it. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading this forum and not making things up such as: assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them and where some guy [doxxed an admin] and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji. I’ll say it again, I responded with a clapping emoji to a post saying Floquenbeamp unblocked TheSpacebook, which isn’t me replying with a clapping emoji to someone doxxing. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so you created the thread to "get eyes on" the blocking admin, then some guy doxed them, then two posts after he did that, your engagement with the thread was to post a clapping emoticon.

I feel like "do not start threads to harass the blocking admin and then keep participating in them with approving gusto after a guy doxes them" is a pretty low bar, and you are not even willing to do this. jp×g🗯️ 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear misrepresentation. I didn’t start the thread to harass the blocking admin, at no point did I mention their name. I started the thread to highlight that I was blocked for one whole week before the discussion had ended, which I was still debating on whether I had broken any rules. I don’t get involved with doxxing, so it had nothing to do with me. Your responses missed the context, so I’ll say it for a third time, I responded with a clapping emoji to a post saying Floquenbeamp unblocked TheSpacebook, which isn’t me replying with a clapping emoji to someone doxxing. To make it clear, I’m not involved with any doxxing, and have not encouraged or engaged with any doxxing. I’m not the site admin or the owner, so I can’t control what others post; so I have ignored all the doxxing (the only thing I can do). TheSpacebook (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please may I also make the kind request that you stop blaming me for the actions of others? I feel as though I am being scapegoated here and being deemed responsible for the content posted on a website that I am not an administrator for and don’t own. Content of which that I haven’t engaged with and have ignored- as that’s the only thing I am able to do within my power. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly were not to blame for the actions of others. But you did open the thread. You would never have been blocked if you'd simply acknowledged the error you made in the first place and committed to not doing it again, instead your decided to argue. I don't agree with the block but part of being a responsible wikipedian is that you own your mistakes. You are responsible also for the second thread that you opened on WPO which resulted in some considerable nastiness. There is another option open to you, other than ignoring, and that is challenging the behaviour and making it abundantly clear it is not acceptable. As the initiator of the thread I would suggest that responsibility falls on you more than anyone else. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did start the second thread and you’re correct that I could have also challenged the behaviour. Let me make clear again, the main point of contention was the block and most people, yourself included, disagree with it and/or its length. Also, I am clearly against doxxing, as per the genesis of this issue being about notable figures being having their postal addresses on their Wikipedia articles. However, you started with You clearly were not to blame for the actions of others. but ended it with As the initiator of the thread I would suggest that responsibility falls on you more than anyone else. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the responsibility to challenge the behaviour falls on you more than anyone else, since you initiated the thread. I see we're going to go around in circles again though. Please just accept the advice and try to take responsibility for your own actions. As I've already inferred, if you'd done this previously, there would have been no drama, no block, no doxxing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve taken your advice on board and I’ve condemned the doxxing in a post on the forum. Thank you for your advice. The thread has since been made private, but I said As the creator of this thread, I must come on here and say that I’m against all forms of doxxing, on Wikipedia and on Wikipediocray. This is the sole reason why I suggested the BLP policy change to specifically omit the exact location data of notable individuals homes. I’m against Wikipedia doxxing notable figures and I’m against Wikipediocracy doxxing Wikipedians. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• In the discussion on TheSpacebook's talk page, the following was said by @Newyorkbrad: As reflected in the current AN thread, how our anti-canvassing policy applies to off-wiki postings about on-wiki policy discussions is by no means clear or agreed-upon. Vagueness on that point is IMHO a more serious problem than anything concerning any individual editor or incident, so I think we ought to start a discussion on WP:CANVASS to make it unambiguous. --Aquillion (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A large piece of the friction caused here are because of how vague it is. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)...Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner...Contacting users off-wiki", how should this be adjusted to make it more clear? CMD (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I welcome that addition to the policy. But I would say something more clear like a notification that presents an opinion which takes one side of the argument, or something similar which minimises the room for interpretation. TheSpacebook (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  That is not an addition, that is part of the existing guideline at WP:CANVASS. CMD (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I know this is not entirely related to the topic, but I'm ever so disappointed to see that several prominent members and administrators here are willing to participate in a forum that has doxxed several of our editors on a misguided crusade for "accountability". This is not the first time this has happened and won't be the last. While the doxxing itself is done by people from outside the Wikipedia community, participation there feels like tacit support. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @Isabelle Belato. I was not aware that this particular website was still a thing, and am revolted at the thought of Wikipedians in good standing coordinating on-wiki business there (or at any other offwiki site). Sandstein 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, I've been uncomfortable with our own admins supporting a forum that allows such behavior for years. Yet, we're still here and they're still doing it. It's time for them to decide if that kind of appearance of impropriety is enough to either leave WPO or abandon their bit here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Why do we need to be naming the website, thread, and author of the doxxing? It's bad enough that it happens, but the thing deserves less visibility, and giving its exact location is the complete opposite of that. Canvassing or whatever, there's a victim here, and it wouldn't hurt some of you to think of how that person might feel behind the screen. Giraffer (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  We should just keep letting editors do this, and there should be no consequence for it, and we should just never mention when it happens because it's extremely cool and normal? jp×g🗯️ 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've redacted the false accusation made in the thread title. Going forward, I will consider blocking anyone, admins/OPs included, who reinstates a false accusation of doxxing. Several editors above have shown that this did not happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  The original post of this section also ends with a false accusation, I’d also appreciate if that could be redacted too, but granted it makes no sense now as the subtitle being redacted leaves it referencing nothing. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I can stuff all the toothpaste back in the tube. Editing the thread title was, to be honest, symbolic more than it was practical. I'll assume JPxG will eventually, on reflection, publicly withdraw the accusation, as would befit someone with admin privileges. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the story here is: "I didn't endorse the doxing, I just went to the doxing website and opened a thread to complain about an admin blocking me, then somebody doxed him, then I expressed my gratitude at a different thing, then I was asked on the admin's noticeboard to justify this, and then after some prodding I made a post denouncing the dox post, then the admin resigned from the arbitration committee, although I maintain that I was in the right to open that thread, and I bear no responsibility for it, and I am 'against' the doxing in some nebulous way, but also maybe I will just go ahead and open more threads about other editors who piss me off in the future".

  Well, okay.

  I don't know how these things work, since I am not a longtime administrator who remembers the convoluted Silmarillion-like lore of Wikipediocracy (this JPxG fool doesn't even know that Féanor gave some guy from WR a bad TBAN in 2008 which means that some other guy on WPO doxing arbs in 2024 is actually a hero because British Mandatory Wikipediocracy's 1948 borders actually included AN alongside Crimea). That notwithstanding, I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most of this is ridiculous babble, but the heart of it is: if you don't understand how something works, it seems fairly stupid to make serious accusations based on that misunderstanding, and then ignore comments from people who do understand it. I hope this is an aberration; i don't want you as an admin if this is your standard MO. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be more direct, then: do you think it is a "false accusation" [sic] (i.e. rather than an inherent ambiguity of the English language, or a potential alternate interpretation of my claim, etc) to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" [sic] as "TheSpacebook's reaction" [sic] to the post?

  I have no problem amending a comment to give additional precision regarding a statement I made, but I do have a problem with being accused of deliberately lying and demanded to retract a true statement because it sounds similar to a false one. jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's a fact that Spacebook's post was not reacting to the the post two previous to it. I am looking at the thread right now and Spacebook quotes the post that they are actually reacting to - which is five posts previous, and is simply a link to Floquenbeam unblocking them. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yup. We don't always realize it but we all know how this works because we've all been there: you scroll through a thread, you read something, you hit "reply" and reply to it, your reply appears at the bottom, but you haven't yet seen what is below the post you're reading -- between the post you replied to and your reply. Then when you keep reading, you realize your reply comes after something else and now it looks bad in context. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’m only just reading this, but thank you for attesting. I’ll post less in this thread from now on TheSpacebook (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  That notwithstanding, I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post. what utter nonsense. The genesis of this issue is that I’m against doxxing and I want the policy to change. I reacted to the admin unblocking me, and also gave them a barnstar for doing so. THIS is a clear false accusation. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't stop posting so much, somebody is probably going to block you again. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there was internal dissension at Wikipediocracy before they “took the thread private” (requiring registration to read). —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG with there being an internal dissension of the doxxing, how can you argue that me relying to a post that said said “Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook” with an applause emoji, was me reacting to the doxxing? TheSpacebook (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Stop. Anyone who can see the thread can see exactly what happened (as I've posted above), there's no need to keep repeating it. I'd take a break from this thread if I were you. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I did open up a topic on the AN Incident page due do the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me. But you’re right, there’s no need to keep repeating here if everyone can just read it for themselves. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2024 (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.

Are people allowed to … <shortened>

Shortened by Floquenbeam. This heading was formerly Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy in which, two posts after some separate unrelated Wikipediocracy user, who is not them, and is instead a different person, doxes the blocking administrator, they post a post, in such a manner as does not necessarily entail approval or direct response, consisting of a clapping emoji, formatted as a reply to a different post in the thread, but nonetheless making the casual implication (not the strict definition of implication as employed in formal logic) that they, the user who started the thread, did not see fit to comment on the post doxing the administrator? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

Revised section title per feedback, in a way that clarifies with precision and hopefully does not generate further misunderstanding.

Follow-up question based on the WPO thread started by TheSpacebook titled "Burning of the Space Book: Blocked for "canvassing" for notifying Wikipediocracy about a BLP topic I opened", where some guy, who is not TheSpacebook, and is a separate non-TheSpacebook person, whose name and identity are separate from TheSpacebook, did this, and then two posts later, TheSpacebook continued to participate in the thread they created, in this case by making a post (again, mot formatted directly as a response to the dox post) consisting of a clapping emoticon. jp×g🗯️ 21:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Self rv (and you have my permission to rv my post with it). DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seriously -- in an offsite thread where some guy is doxing arbs and explicitly bragging about doing so as an intimidation tactic, what degree of friendly participation should somebody be able to have in that thread and remain a Wikipedia editor in good standing?

Is it permissible for this person to make a bare minimum form-letter denunciation of the specific doxing post, and then retain the prerogative to keep hanging out there and making threads to round up a posse whenever they decide it's really important to win an onwiki argument?

Did you read the thread? I was not the biggest fan of GN's arbitrational jurisprudence, but this is utterly absurd and gobsmacking. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have said something more empathetic than "seriously" - which was mainly from shock. But this is not the way to go. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That header is really unhelpful and just seems to pour petrol on the flames. Please drop the stick.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: When I made the thread about the WPO user doxing the arbitrator, I was asked to clarify the initial header multiple times, asked to amend my original post, strike the original post, add a supplement to the original post, after I did that an AN/I thread was opened to demand I retract my statement, and I was threatened with a block. I was specifically requested, multiple times, to not raise the issue without including this supplementary information about who made the post and what the user's precise extent of participation was in the thread. jp×g🗯️ 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your amendment to the title effectively repeats your original allegation - and it is so long that it actually breaks the edit summary. This is not the behaviour that is expected of an admin - admins should be trying to reduce conflict, not increase it. I would strongly suggest that an uninvolved admin closes this before the situation gets worse.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I support the recommendation to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is ridiculous. Loki (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2024 (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.

So, more doxing/ect of editors, nothing to be done?

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.

---

Just checking in one last time on the harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors that do anything WPO members dislike. Nothing to be done? More of the usual suspects in this thread and related user talk pages that are WPO members and that actively work to downplay and close any discussion about their friendly acquaintances doing said harassment? I'm hard pressed to not see said editors actively palling around to not be just as bad as the serial sock masters and community banned types they're purposefully helping out. I guess same as it ever was. Silverseren^C 00:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the big majority of people understand the concept of an internet message board; and that one posting on an internet message board is not to be confused with endorsing every other post on that board. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, are you saying the two editors who closed the discussions above (IgnatiusofLondon and 28bytes) are either somehow in cahoots with Wikipediocracy or else members there? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren can speak for themselves, but personally I found it very worrying right at the start of the thread that users were jumping to the defense of WPO rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns of (blatant) off-wiki canvassing. Then when true indefensible nastiness occurred over at WPO those users are no where to be seen. Which *could* be interpreted as tacit support. What are the interests being protected here? Clearly not collegiality and civility here at Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have an account on WPO, but only so I can view the private boards. I have never posted or interacted with anyone there, and was only recently on the receiving end of their ire. I am not in cahoots with editors there and have no view on the site, though my limited experience with it has not been endearing. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, A. B., I was referring to editors such as Carrite just above you and AndyTheGrump in the discussions above, both of whom are WPO members that were actively involved in the threads that TheSpacebook made on WPO and both of whom, despite said active involvement, went after GeneralNotability when they blocked TheSpacebook for canvassing. Heck, after all the discussions above, AndyTheGrump went and made a new thread on WPO advocating for more canvassing of the same type done by TheSpacebook on the site. I can only presume this includes advocating for further harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors, since that's the result from those prior threads and I don't exactly see any active WPO members decrying what happened in those threads. Silverseren^C 23:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll simply repeat myself: Bad block. Discussion was ongoing, you essentially supervoted a sanction (with no support in policy, might I add). —Carrite - If that constitutes "going after" an Administrator for a pretty clearly ill-considered and hurried action, I will just shake my head and leave the hyperbole and melodrama to you. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Heck, after all the discussions above, AndyTheGrump went and made a new thread on WPO advocating for more canvassing of the same type done by TheSpacebook on the site. No I didn't. Total fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, I’m confused. @AndyTheGrump and @Carrite’s accounts contradict yours. All 3 of you have been around here since 2010 or earlier. Are they lying? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, A. B., I mixed the two of them up. It was Carrite that started that thread. Andy just went and commented in it yesterday. You'll have to interpret whether his comment is in agreement with the premise or not. The thread is titled "Fellow Wikipedians: Let's Talk About Canvassing" in the BLP subforum. It certainly doesn't seem like either of them are trying to disagree with anything I said on their actual actions, whether with their responses here on Wikipedia or what they've been saying on WPO. Silverseren^C 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My only post in the WPO thread, in full:

The level of Wikipedia paranoia about 'external canvassing' seems almost to have reached the point where the mere fact that something has been discussed externally is seen by some as sufficient reason to close down any further debate. This is of course deeply unhealthy, if not downright dangerous, and open to manipulation.

An unethical Wikipediocracy (I think this one still has ethics of a sort, though some regulars might find the concept hard to handle...) could, were it into looking for ways to pay for the server etc, offer to 'discuss things' loudly here, for a fee, and thereby ensure that they remain undiscussed (or at least discussed properly) in the one place where they really need to be. A nice little earner.

And yes, the second paragraph was an attempt at humour, obviously - the 'evilgrin' smiley I ended it with seems not to be available on Wikipedia. Possibly Wikipedia might like to think over the consequences of reacting with such horror to external websites expressing opinions regarding Wikipedia policy, given the route to manipulation this facilitates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe said reaction is because in this case, much like so many before involving WPO, resulted in other members there doxing and outing Wikipedia editors they disagreed with? I notice you and Carrite seem to be pretty consistently glossing over and ignoring that most important point. Silverseren^C 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider responding to false claims you made about me to be 'glossing over' anything. Beyond that, I am not responsible for everything that gets posted on Wikipediocracy, for the same reason that neither you nor I is responsible for everything that gets posted on Wikipedia. I have had my say regarding what happened on WPO on the forum there, and I am under no obligation to comment further on it here - given your consistent misrepresentation, and given that nobody has accused me of any substantive violation of Wikipedia policy, that is all I have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You are responsible for your choice to continue participating there. Levivich (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Nobody is forced to participate there. Or here. And as long as I have such choices, I will exercise them as I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and I will judge you for the choices you make, such as the choice to defend the forum, to continue participating there, and to gloss over the doxing. You're not responsible for the doxing but you are responsible for your reaction to it, such as glossing over it. And people are perfectly entitled to judge you for that reaction.

So, do you care that on this forum you choose to participate in, they have posted the real names of editors, posted their photos and made fun of their appearance, posted the names of family members, and/or posted family members' photos, for (by my count) over half a dozen editors in the past six months or so?

Will you choose to say anything about that other than "I didn't post it"? Or do you choose to stay silent, ignore or gloss over it, while continuing to participate there as you see fit?

This isn't some passing content dispute or butthurt feelings here, Andy. This is about the privacy and safety of your fellow volunteers. Do you care about that?

So far it looks like you don't because I don't see any concern from you about it at all.

Or you Carrite. Or you stanistani. Just Step Sideways--this was your spot. Where are you guys now? Levivich (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 silence is complicity. It might not break wiki policy, technically, but it certainly isn't commensurate with being a decent human being. Even thespacebook realised the need to distance themselves from the depravity. Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

w r o n g - v e n u e Carrite (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

'Depravity'? Really? For posting on a website that has on occasion used freely available online information (sometime directly from Wikipedia) to link user names with real names? As opposed to posting on another, vastly more prominent website (this one) that does exactly the same thing, routinely on WP:COI, for a start. A website that routinely hosts attack biographies, and routinely obstructs those who complain about being attacked by blocking them for 'conflict of interest', 'legal threats' and whatever other crap it can come up with to avoid admitting that its lack of control of biographical material enables anyone and everyone to use it to settle personal scores, engage in political point-scoring, and whatever other malicious 'content creating' they can get away with. A website that considers random social media posts sufficient evidence to determine an individual's sexuality. A website that has preemptively 'regendered' at least one notable individual against their own expressed wishes. A website that has hosted gossip on everything from allegations about early-teens TV show actors supposedly posting masturbation videos to content (featured in a DYK no less) about a missing person supposedly being cooked in a curry to dispose of their body. A website that where a significant proportion of contributors evidently consider it appropriate to fill a whole article on vacuous gossip and fuckwitted conspiracy theories about the entirely imaginary 'disappearance' of a member of a royal family. A website that reacts to having it pointed out that its own supposed policy on not including personal addresses in biographies has been violated by screaming about 'canvassing'.

Over the years I have, in my own small way, tried to persuade Wikipedia to actually uphold the policies regarding content on living persons that it claims to aspire to. Sometimes I have succeeded, sometimes not. On numerous occasions, where I have succeeded, it has been at the cost of facing abuse from 'contributors' here who seem more concerned about asserting their right to post whatever crap they can find about whoever they like than in creating anything remotely resembling an encyclopaedia. And where I have succeeded, it has become increasingly obvious, it is only ever temporary. This website - routinely used by Google as its number one source of 'information - hosts more malicious biographical content than any one individual could ever rectify, even without the obstructionist gossip-mongers and 'WP:NOTCENSORED' garbage-collectors that infest the site, and use WP:ANI etc as a platform to attack anyone who complains.

So yes, I participate at Wikipediocracy now. Why the flying fuck shouldn't I? If I have to chose between the 'depravity' of WPO and that of Wikipedia, guess which one concerns me more? Guess which one affects the personal lives of those who want absolutely nothing to do with the damn place the more? Guess which one Google sticks at the top of its searches? The level of sheer hypocrisy on this website is almost beyond imagining. Publish Google-scrapings about anyone and everyone but themselves? Fine. Post on a website that points out that someone was using their real name as a username until a few years back, and get screamed at, accused of being 'depraved', and treated as if I'd just pissed on your wedding cake.

Wikipedia is self-evidently incapable of policing itself. It claims to uphold 'policies' on biographical content that turn out to be entirely optional when convenient (more often than not, when the inconvenient 'policy' concerns someone the contributors don't like). It respects the privacy of others only when it feels like it, and yet engages in all sorts of rewriting-history nonsense to preserve the imaginary 'anonymity' of contributors who have made their identities trivially easy to determine - or had even posted it directly. So yes, I'd rather be 'depraved' on a website where not everyone thinks that Wikipedia contributors who abuse the system for personal gain, personal point-scoring, or just plain self-aggrandisement deserve the pseudo-anonymity they desire, than be hypocritical here, where indifference to depravity is masked by fictions like 'always improving' and whatever other relentless bullshit can be used to justify carrying on pumping out the same old garbage.

Wikipedia, given its Google-enforced prominence, needs scrutiny. Deep scrutiny. Critical scrutiny. Investigative scrutiny. Analytic scrutiny. Scrutiny from people who haven't bought into the fluffy-bunny-wonderfulness fantasies of the place. If such scrutiny reveals things that its participants don't like, tough shit. Nobody forced you to participate. You chose, of your own free will to participate on what must surely be the most prominent host of malicious biographical material on the web. Are you doing anything about it? No? Then don't hand out lectures on 'depravity'. Fix your own first. If you can. If you actually want to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in short, that's a yes on the defending WPO's harassment and doxing of Wikipedia editors and being fully okay with it because you consider Wikipedia and the community here worse. Good to know. Thanks for laying things out so blatantly like that. Silverseren^C 16:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you really think that is an accurate summary of what I've just written, I can only suggest that you might be well advised to start looking for a hobby more compatible with your level of comprehension. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a good attempt at rationalization but what Wikipedia doesn't do that WPO does is post the real names of editors because they made a block someone doesn't like. Or post someone's photo just to make fun of it. Levivich (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall that @AndyTheGrump was outspoken in his criticism on Wikipediocracy of User:GeneralNotability's outing. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Lulfas (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything that can be done. For better or for worse, the Wikipedia community will never agree to sanction users for simply participating in external communities that allow/support for the doxxing of our editors, or is welcoming of other similarly disgusting behavior. We can only hope editors here who are also members there will stop running defense whenever issues like this are raised. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What exactly would you like done? We can't control other websites, and I don't think any Wikipedians in these threads endorse the doxxing. Saying "nothing to be done?" is easy, but I don't see any proposals to do something. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that we can't sanction users for being a member of some off-wiki message board. We can set a clear precedent for how our policies like canvassing apply, though. We can also talk about the COI someone has when discussing what happens on an off-wiki site where they're an active member (and/or even a participant in the thread being discussed on-wiki). General question: what might an on-wiki topic ban from WPO-related matters look like? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's doubtful we can/should police off-wiki discussion in general, nor does off-wiki discussion provide a direct COI. This specific case was an issue due to its direct canvassing, and handling this was enforced in the normal way before being undone because WP:CANVASS' The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)...Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner...Contacting users off-wiki was considered a grey area. If someone canvasses repeatedly, on-wiki or off-wiki, this should be handled in the normal escalatory fashion. CMD (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think (as I have said above) that we ought to at least reach a firm consensus on what constitutes off-wiki canvassing, and should discuss ways to minimize its impact. Putting aside this exact case, confusion over whether (or when) it's acceptable for an editor here to go to an external site and "call for backup" there is a problem. I would also personally prefer at least some additional requirements on canvassed users - one thing I've suggested on WP:CANVASS is a strict requirement that any editor who believes they may have been canvassed to a discussion disclose that fact. At that point (when someone is participating in a discussion they were canvassed to) it is on-wiki activity and is something we can do something about. Of course, canvassing often attracts new users who may not know about that requirement, so some leeway would be needed with them (at least until someone who suspects canvassing explains to them that they need to disclose it and points to the relevant policy), but for experienced users there shouldn't be such leeway. Stealth canvassing is an extremely serious problem that could cause major problems on targeted articles or discussions. I don't personally think anything more than a disclosure is needed (it is not enough for an actual COI on its own IMHO), and it doesn't even have to be specific if editors feel it might be too personally identifiable, but I do believe that an editor who could reasonably be seen as having been canvassed to a discussion ought to have an obligation to disclose that fact so that anyone who evaluates the consensus of a discussion that they were canvassed to can take it into account. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've discussed at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, the most effective way to reduce the impact of people showing up who are unwilling to weigh the relative value of the arguments in a discussion is to change the decision-making process so that the strength of an argument isn't largely determined by the number of people supporting it. For better or worse, though, the English Wikipedia community is reluctant to change this decision-making tradition. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

...Sorry, is this about WP:WPO, Wikiproject Opera? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That would place far too much power in the personal judgment of admins. But even beyond that, I strenuously disagree that it would "solve" canvassing. 100 users who want a particular outcome are going to be better at coming up with arguments for that outcome than 10 equally-experienced, equally-articulate users; even the most flawless, impartial, emotionless admin, gifted with absolutely perfect capability to determine whose arguments are objectively stronger and deciding solely on that basis, would still be more likely to find in favor of the 100 users, because a hundred users are going to be able to find far more of the possible arguments for their position, will be able to do a much more thorough source search, and will be far more effective at poking holes in the arguments of the opposition, based purely on the weight of numbers and nothing else. This means that canvassing can never be allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Admins don't have to be the ones making the decisions. As in the real world, decisions are more effectively made by looking at all the arguments, determining their validity, and weighing their relative value. Of course, nothing will result in perfect decisions being made. Personally, I think it's worthwhile to use approaches that mitigate crowd effects, even if they can't be completely eliminated. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (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.

spalding united article being vandalised

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.

---

Spalding United F.C. found vandalism looking thru edit filter logs cause i was bored 90.210.173.157 (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

i also cant revert it for some reason (sorry if theres an easier way to deal with this i havent used wikipedia in years) 90.210.173.157 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Dealt with; thanks. You will typically get a quicker response at WP:AIV (to ask for vandals to be blocked) and/or WP:RFPP (to ask for pages to be protected). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2024 (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.

Misinformation about homosexuality on swahili wikipedia

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, there seems to be a pretty egregious violation of Wikipedia’s rules over on Swahili Wikipedia by the admin @Riccardo Riccioni. The page on homosexuality (ushoga in swahili), although mostly accurate information, is interspersed with unsubstantiated and irrelevant information. For example, at one point the article states:

“watetezi wa ushoga wanataka hao vijana wapewe dawa za kusimamisha ubalehe ili baadaye iwe rahisi kuwafanyia upasuaji wa kubadili vyungo vya uzazi

advocates of homosexuality want the young people to be given drugs to stop puberty so that later it will be easier to perform surgery to change the reproductive organs"

Not only is this a very opinionated statement, it is completely unrelated to homosexuality. Another example is:

“mara nyingine ni kwamba mtu ameathiriwa na tukio ambalo amefanyiwa hasa utotoni au amekubali mwenyewe kujaribu kufanya hata akazoea kiasi cha kushindwa kujinasua

sometimes it is that a person has been affected by an event that happened to him especially in childhood or he has agreed to try it (homosexuality) out until he gets used to it to the point of being unable to break free."

They then cite Neil E. Whitehead, who has been repeatedly discredited, is not even a psychologist, and does not represent the general view amongst psychologists.

These are just two examples, there are others in the article. I took it upon myself to go and make corrections to these few, highly opinionated and factually dubious claims in the article. Upon making these changes, I got a message from Riccardo, an Italian, accusing me of “ubeberu” (imperialism) by making these changes, said that homosexuality is unacceptable and thus the article has to maintain misinformation. As an aside, he also quite condescendingly referred to “us Tanzanians” and “you Americans” despite him being of Italian descent and me being of Tanzanian descent (though I do live in America). I know it is strange reporting this here given that this is from a different language, but I don’t believe swahili wikipedia has the infrastructure to deal with these kinds of things. Kisare (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has no authority on other-language Wikipedias. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kisare (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia - we cannot do anything about a different language. GiantSnowman 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So thats it then? Theres nothing anyone can do? Alright then. Kisare (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (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:Skyerise: refuses to AGF, claims I have ulterior motives

In an RfD, User:Skyerise has described my editions related to Discordianism as me being an [a]nti-discordian editor on a spree.

I went to the user's talk page to tell them that their comment was a personnal attack and not AGF. Skyerise then reverted my user talk page message and doubled down, stating: that's not an attack, it is an accurate summary of your recent editing behavious, whiich is acceptable. Veverve (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asserting that it's not an accurate summary of behaviour that includes nominating dozens of Discordian related redirects for deletion? I am happy to revise it to "an editor who has made dozens of apparently anti-Discordian edits". Do you find that rephrasing to also be an "attack". Skyerise (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Your initial statement ([a]nti-discordian editor on a spree) is totally inaccurate, because I am not POV-pushing. The second statement you propose ("an editor who has made dozens of apparently anti-Discordian edits") is a but thinly-veiled version of your first statement, so it is also inaccurate. Veverve (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. I revised the statement, even though in my personal opinion, you are completely overreacting to bring this to ANI and might want to read WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, this is the wrong board for this. This is WP:AN, not WP:ANI, so it is unlikely to get any admin responses here. Speaking of WP:BOOMARANG, in case anyone is paying attention, this editor accused me of stonewalling and ownership in this edit], which I personally find a more serious violation of WP:AGF. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Those were not accusations of stonewalling, but a reminder of policies and that putting a certain banner does not mean you get to decide when an article should be edited for a long period of time. I do not think you have stonewalled the article; a less-than-24-hours {{under construction}} banner is not stonewalling.

We are at AN since to me the problem is neither urgent nor chronic. Veverve (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Skyerise has now reverted my AN notice message on their talk page and has attacked me in their edit sumary, stating: whats the phrase, thin membrane? ([87]). Veverve (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove the notice. I didn't mention you by name in my edit summary, either. See WP:POT. As for the use of this board, it is for admin to admin conversation, not for "less urgent" issues. If you think the matter is "neither urgent nor chronic", you shouldn't even be reporting it! You just waste people's time. Skyerise (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

While Skyerise probably should have assumed good faith, OP would be wise to learn from this that when you mass nom a whole bunch of redirects, it does look a lot like a spree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I check all redirects for a page, and I nominate many of them if I believe many of them should be deleted or retargeted. Users have the right to RfD as many redirects as they want, given that they are doing it for legitimate reasons (and not for example to flood the RfD page). I do not see how mass RfD, as I have done in other cases, can be publicly deemed a form of POV-pushing ([a]nti-discordian). What else am I to do in cases where I see multiple redirects I disagree with, if not RfD them? Veverve (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What if you nominated a few of them for deletion and waited to see how those discussions went? That would lower the burden on RfD participants and it would increase the likelihood that each discussion received sufficient participation to achieve an authentic consensus. If the discussions resulted in deletions, you could open more RfDs for the other redirects. If the discussions did not result in deletions, that would likely be a sign that additional RfDs are not a good idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern, I think you are moving from the issue of refusal to AGF and accusation of POV-pushing I have initially raised. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP does not get to determine the parameters of a noticeboard discussion. I have already stated that Skyerise probably should have assumed good faith, and Skyerise has already amended the offending comment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't belong here, but since it's here, some thoughts. Veverve, you need to slow down on nominations. The community's ability to process nominations is limited. Editors often have difficulty assuming good faith in the face of that many nominations. On that note; Skyerise shouldn't have characterized Veverve as an anti-Discordian editor; it's a personal attack and doesn't accomplish anything. Skyerise, thank you for striking that comment. A friendly reminder to everyone that what's an obvious redirect to one is not obvious to another, especially when there's no mention at the target. I think we're done here? Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for protection on Environmental_damage_of_Gaza_caused_by_the_Israel–Hamas_war

Hi

I've just published Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war I would really appreciate it if it could be protected. I've been writing quite a lot on the conflict and have had similar articles vandalised, conspiracy theories added etc by new accounts and IP addresses.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings, the page protection policy doesn't allow for preemptive protection when no vandalism, disruption, or abuse has happened. If it does, and from multiple users, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much, hopefully it won't happen. John Cummings (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The article falls under WP:ARBPIA and is therefore limited to extended-confirmed users anyway; if there are issues any admin can protect the article. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)