Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322

Review of recent RfC closure (Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities)

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.

---

Several editors - including me - have expressed surprise and disagreement with S Marshall's recent closure of this RfC. There has been discussion on S Marshall's User Talk page and the WikiProject's Talk page. I am requesting a review of this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I welcome community scrutiny and if I closed that wrongly, then I'm happy to be overturned here. My close stands on three feet, and my close should only be allowed to stand if all three of them are correct.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

In the light of the feedback I got last time, I've honestly done my best to defend the close on my talk page :-\.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well-reasoned close. If you want it overturned, you're going to need another RfC with more participants I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place where we discuss how wrong the close was or is the discussion already linked above sufficient? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's the place where we look at the close and see if it's reasonable, which IMO it is. FWIW, I think almost all subjective rankings are UNDUE in leads, as the close notes - that applies to "List of 100 best X" lists, annual rankings and the rest. Objective facts are different: graduate employment rate, for example, or the percentage of graduates from a law school who get a job in the law, those are not subjective. My old school is objectively one of the oldest in the world, but any judgment of its academic ranking is likely to be highly subjective. Guy (help!) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to with a RfC that had five of the fifteen participating editors in favor of omitting all mention of this kind of information in the lede of these articles no matter how well supported by exceptionally high quality sources and thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. If you genuinely believe that then you should have participated in the RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I would have participated if I had known it was going on. Guy (help!) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was widely advertised; I personally placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Wikipedia Talk:Neutral point of view. And of course it was also listed with all other RfCs in the places where they're listed e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. ElKevbo (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, didn't say it wasn't. I did not see it though. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It really does feel like non-admin closures get far more scrutiny and pushback than admin closures no matter how reasoned or well-explained the closure is.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or what they do but I would be doing the same thing if an administrator had closed this discussion using the same rationale that has been used. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, of course, since you "lost", but it's a plainly well-reasoned close. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking that it be reviewed because it's poorly reasoned. Accusing me of a being a poor loser is a personal attack and you should retract it with an apology. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't read that as a personal attack at all. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's not an attack, it's completely normal for people to kvetch about a close that goes against them. Guy (help!) 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a well-reasoned and reasonable close, based on the stated policies. Could it have been closed differently? Given the low turnout and the less-than-perfect clarity of some relevant policies, yes, someone else could have closed it differently - I'd probably be torn between closing it as option 1 and option 2 myself (though I'd need more time to finally decide). As the decision was so close, I don't think we should rule out a second RfC. If someone decides to start one, I'd suggest some wider (and obviously non-canvassing) publicity would help attract more contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a suitable close to me. Certainly not a clear one, and definitely not an easy close. It for sure is not wide enough off the mark for it to be reopened, but a second RfC isn't a problem either. Closer did a good job in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lowly non-administrator here, just asking for advice: do you think it might be better to have a simpler "should they be included at all" RfC or "should they be restricted at all" RfC first, and then a secondary RfC second to decide what restrictions/inclusions should be the default consensus, or better to have a similar RfC again just with wider input? Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't say the subject especially interests me, and i probably wouldn't have participated, even had i known about the RfC. That being said, i think S Marshall did a very good job with the close. The reasoning is solid, all three feet are firm and make the whole thing stable, and his defence/explanation here and on his talk page is clear, simple, and easy to follow. The close should be upheld; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• In order to get into the weeds here, I decided to do my own review of the RfC and see where I differed from S Marshall. I think S Marshall got this pretty much right on with one exception: I think there was weak support for P3 and not P1, but I also think that the rest of the reasoning was correct, and that the fact I think there was weak support for P3 actually doesn't change anything about what S Marshall's conclusion of the rule was. Concluding rankings and "prestigious" should not be used to describe schools in the ledes of articles, but describing a school as "Oxbridge" or "Russell Group" or "Ivy League" or by one of its associations reflects the discussion. In any case, a quick search of the word "prestigious" shows it's often used in articles about academics, or about groups of universities - IE Business School was the first one to come up, and that clearly needs editing. Good close overall. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Close is reasonable. I agree with Sporting Flyer about P3 though. From S Marshall's statement, it seems like this is borderline no consensus; essentially, we should be cautious in describing prestige and err on the side of saying too little. I think in practice that will be closer to P3 than P1. It's not worth overturning since it's an accurate close, but I would recommend a second RfC (probably advertised at WP:CENT) which is more open ended than a straw poll. The other two options only focused on citations but neglected a lot of other editorial considerations, and using Marshall's close as a starting point to discuss what is acceptable is probably a better use of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with overturning to no consensus. I don't think there will be much of a difference and would still recommend a second RfC, but others seem to think overturning to no consensus is better which is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would overturn. The NOT argument is made only by the closer. The reason this is bad is not just because it is an interpretation of just one editor, the closer, so can't be anything like a consensus application, but on the merits it is unsupported except by the closer's ipsa dixit (closers are not suppose to make arguments). The discussing editors, if they had discussed NOT, could point to Encyclopedia Britannica which for Harvard says 'prestigious' in its lead,[1] and its Oxford entry, says 'great' in its lead [2]. It's thus entirely dubious -- and should have been discussed in the discussion and not by the single closer -- that those words are NOT encyclopedic in a university encyclopedia article lead. This is especially so, in light of the discussion that did occur that a lead is suppose to orient the reader, distinguishing the subject per WP:LEAD (distinguishing does often call for an adjective or two), and editors in the discussion did rely on LEAD, contra the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is still open, and considering the additional comments below, including by the closer, I would note that overturning is still my position but even stronger. As shown below by, inter alia, Melanie, the closer improperly rejected the consensus of the experienced editors, who had explicitly rejected the closer's preferred choice. Moreover, the logic of the closer's NOT/Promo supervote falls apart on close inspection. If we were to follow the closer's logic, we would have to say alleged "promo" is not allowed in the lead, but it is fine in the body of the article. (More likely the closer has a skewed view of NOT/Promo, which is not consensus, but how could it be as only the closer made that argument.) The close just can't be right (including on NPOV) -- we follow RS in what they say good or bad, and just because the closer does not approve of certain words/concepts that RS use in discussing and distinguishing subjects, we don't ban those words and concepts from parts of whole classes of articles, as the closer would have it. In addition, on SUBJECTIVE, the close is very weak because even if you buy the closer's narrow interpretation of SUBJECTIVE, it does not follow that SUBJECTIVE is exclusive, so that it bans everything it does not explicitly cover -- SUBJECTIVE is not even remotely written so as to force a ban on words/concepts in the way the closer would construe it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. P2 and P3 are much more similar to each other than P1; I don't see supporters of either of them who listed P1 as their second choice. I see 4 !votes in favor of P1, and 11 against, or only 27% support. In order to find a consensus in favor of something with such a skewed percentage against, the opposing side has to be completely without merit, which is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Now, the fact that the arguments presented by P1 supporters are on average stronger is, however, a reason to not declare consensus in favor of the side with 73% of the !vote. Therefore I think "no consensus" is the best outcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I weighted each vote (and discarded one P3 vote) since some users picked multiple options and weighted their preferences, and P3 came out slightly ahead. I wouldn't call it a 73-27% vote, especially with three options. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I participated in the RfC, my reading of the consensus is that we should overturn the close. It was (as is true of all of S Marshall's closes) thoroughly considered, but it had two significant issues. Copying my previous comment on them:

First, [the closer] writes that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather concerned by point 2 of S Marshall's three legs - in an AfD that would raise serious eyebrows, where we prefer closers who see non-applicable arguments participate rather than super-closing on those grounds. I'd always assumed that that held true for RfC closes as well. Were some clear policy not subject to local exceptions violated by all the reasoning I could a NC being warranted, but that isn't the instance here. It's absolutely well considered, but I'd say it's valid, not sound. Weak overturn, pending possible change if individuals think my reasoning is the case with RfCs too Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is absolutely key. Nobody in the debate mentioned WP:NOT, and without that, we've got no prohibition on promotional or advocacy editing. I interpolated it. If I was wrong then my close must be overturned.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close and thank S Marshall for their work. The reason they get attention here is that they are stepping up and closing difficult RfCs—thanks. Re the RfC issue, in six months another RfC with some realistic examples might be considered—it's all very well to imagine a perfect world where a very reliable source says X is the greatest and that gets copied to the lead, but the implications of that need to be considered in examples. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn I find two problems with this close and believe it should be overturned. First, he claims “no consensus on the numbers alone” and proceeds to ignore the numbers. But if you actually tally the comments, as I just now did: (correcting my tally since I missed one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC))

• 14 15 people commented.
• P1 was preferred by 3 4 (one unclear), opposed by 8 (several strongly), 3 did not state
• P2 was preferred by 6 (several qualified with a hedge about sources/wording), second choice for 2, opposed by 2 3 (one weak, one unclear), 4 did not state
• P3 was preferred by 6, second choice for 4, 1 2 (one strong), 3 did not state

It is impossible to see how this discussion could be closed in favor of P1. I would have interpreted it as a choice between P2 and P3, exact wording to be determined by discussion - with P1 having been soundly rejected by a majority of commenters.

Second, he notes that people mentioned NPOV and did not bring up NOT - but then raises NOT and PEA himself as arguments. In effect he was casting a supervote.

He comments on the paucity of contributions. That should not surprise anyone given that WikiProject:Higher Education is not a high profile site or on many people’s watchlist. Reopening it now after the rest of Wikipedia has been made aware of it should give a more reliable result. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Could you please explain more clearly how you reached the conclusion that there was a "weak consensus in favor of P1", when a majority of the commenters (8 out of 14) specifically opposed P1? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, with pleasure.
  I began by looking at the debate at a superficial level and totting up the number of editors in favour of each position, so as to give myself a benchmark. I found that on the numbers, there was no consensus.
  I then proceeded to read the history and background of the debate, so as to understand what was going on. The conclusions I reached were:
  1) The history is remarkably complex and detailed, but I needed to understand all the contributing editors as suitably responsible and experienced Wikipedians; and
  2) A key triggering incident was when editors decided it would be appropriate to allow Harvard University to describe itself as "prestigious" in the lead of its Wikipedia article (a decision apparently based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica's wording); and
  3) Although the debate was certainly begun in good faith and on the basis of what the drafters believed was in Wikipedia's best interests, it nevertheless represented an attempt by a WikiProject to establish a separate ruleset for articles within its own purview. Specifically, it was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising.
  I then found myself in an unusual position because none of the editors involved had invoked WP:NOT. Nobody at all had bluelinked it, and I initially wavered about whether it would be right to apply a policy that nobody bluelinked in the debate. I then consulted WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to see if it contained any guidance about what to do. I found: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. I raised an eyebrow, and then moved on to the final paragraph which states: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests.
  Now, I've got a longstanding view on IAR from spending so many years reviewing consensus-related decisions at DRV, and it's this: I think that a local consensus to ignore the rules can't be implied. I think that it's OK to IAR if the rule in question has been brought up in the debate, considered by the participants, and explicitly rejected as inapplicable or inappropriate; but it's not OK to IAR silently.
  Then I reflected on Wikipedia's attitude to promotional language in articles. I noted that Wikipedia is very attractive to those who want to use our encyclopaedia to market their products or promote their business, and Wikipedians have had to become highly sensitive to promotion. We tend to take a very hard line on it. I decided that the consensus against any form of promotional language is very old and very strong indeed. Taking those factors into consideration, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that even if the debate participants were oblivious to WP:NOT, it still applied to them. I recognized that this was a potentially controversial thing for me to decide, and therefore I needed to say explicitly in the close that I had made that decision.
  I have reflected on it long and hard since, and I still feel it was the right choice.
  Once I had given myself those directions I re-weighted the votes, and here is where I depart hard from the thought process that you and King of Hearts have displayed here. I understand from what you and King of Hearts have posted that you feel that I as a closer can weigh the votes, but the acceptable range of weights I can give is constrained: in other words, as closer, I'm not allowed to give a vote from a good faith Wikipedian a weight of 0, or 0.001. The acceptable range might be, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5.
  On this point, I simply disagree with you. I think it's possible for a contribution to a debate to be not just diminished, but totally blown out of the water, by subsequent contribution. So for example, in a deletion debate, if Editor A says: "Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources", and then Editor B links a long string of reliable sources that cover the subject, then the weight I would give to Editor A is not 0.5, or 0.3, but zero.
  In the light of this, I gave DGG's contribution to that debate a very high weighting indeed, because it introduced a lot of considerations that previous editors had not reflected on and which were not refuted by anyone else. I think that you and King of Hearts would view the weighting I gave to that contribution as inappropriately high and not within my reach as closer, but on the matter of how much weight is permissible, I respectfully disagree with you.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

totting up the number of editors in favour of each position So in other words, in your initial evaluation of the discussion you looked only at supports - and ignored opposes? I suggest that is an approach you should change from now on. Oppose !votes are every bit as significant as support !votes, sometimes more so. In the future please try to get a sense of what each person is actually SAYING with their comment. As you can see, I tally several types of !vote: "support", "second choice" or "acceptable", "oppose", and “did not state a clear position". That approach clearly shows that very few people supported P1 and a majority opposed it. By tallying only supports, then embarking on your own analysis of policy, you completely missed the clear consensus AGAINST P1. For that matter, even the bare “support” tally of 3 for P1, 6 for P2, and 6 for P3 should have indicated that this was not an inconclusive discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I have refrained from commenting here, however, I have to object to your statement that the RFC was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (a policy you yourself have referenced many times in this discussion) "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers." Thus, discussing a school's reputation -- positive or negative -- cannot violate WP's rules concerning advertisement and promotion provided the information is verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Calidum 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. I start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers and proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Calidum, it is my position that WP:SUBJECTIVE does not apply to universities or institutes of higher learning. When I read it, I can see a rule that with all due respect is clearly meant to apply to creative and artistic works. Although I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing that you use to contend that it stretches to universities, I see that as quite mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If your interpretation were correct that the portion of SUBJECTIVE I quoted applies only to creative works (despite the sentence beginning "more generally"), countless articles across Wikipedia would need to be scrubbed to adhere to it. Antonin Scalia, for instance, is clearly not a work of art, yet we note "he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history." Nor could we say Sandy Koufax has been called "one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history" and "one of the outstanding Jewish athletes in American sports." And forget about saying Charles Darwin has been called "one of the most influential figures in human history." Calidum 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: RE  I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. You don’t see it? I grant you, only two commenters put the word “oppose” in bold, so it was necessary to actually read the comments to see what they are saying - but don’t you read all the way through the comments before starting to draw a conclusion? If you don’t, how can you be a closer of discussions? If you had read the comments, here is what you would have found: Both User:WhatamIdoing and User:RedHotPear put “oppose P1” in bold. User:EEng said ~P1, using the ~ symbol for “not” to show opposition, and providing a link to explain it. User:ElKevbo said “P1 is unacceptable”. User:Sdkb said “oppose P1”. User:Dhtwiki said “P1 is too severe and, I would guess, difficult to enforce.” User:Jonathan A Jones described P1 as “a counsel of despair too far”. User:Calidum said “P1 is a non-starter.” That’s eight opposes, a majority of the commenters. You "start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers," but there is. A very clear consensus "in the numbers" against P1. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said: What I see in the numbers is no clear winner; therefore I start the weighing process; and when I start weighing I get to the outcome I did. I don't see it as helpful, or appropriate, to subtract P1 from the range of possible outcomes "on the numbers" before the weighing process starts. I'm afraid that I don't intend to offer any further replies on this point, although I'd welcome you raising anything else that you feel unclear about.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regret, I have to agree with overturn to no consensus here. That was a masterpiece of a closing statement and a genuinely noble attempt to wring a consensus out of a discussion; but I just don't think that discussion reached a consensus. While I really get the reasoning used, there is a limit to how one can weight votes, and P1 was explicitly objected to by quite a lot of participants. While I probably agree with P1 personally, if I was going to try and pull a consensus out of that discussion I probably would have leant towards P2 as the explicit compromise position, but I think I might have felt slightly off doing even that. I'm also on record previously as generally objecting to closers pulling out new arguments and policies in closes; as reasonable as S Marshall's genuinely were here, it almost always ends up smelling a bit like a supervote. Really great points were made in the close, but this feels like a discussion that needs more participation. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I think it was a damn fine closing giving a clear rationale, better than most, that actually had policy grounds, and hope S Marshall keeps up the good work. However, one of the "legs" is in dispute. We are to close discussions (when it is needed) by "careful analysis of the discussion". At issue is if an editor (or Admin) can "interpolate". If this is allowed can it be done in such a way to not give the appearance of a super vote. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy and the closer should not personally select which is the better policy. In between these two there can be some confusion: those that flatly contradict established policy but this becomes more clear with: The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. This indicates that if it is not brought up it cannot be used even if clear policies and guidelines appear to be justifiable for use. King of Hearts brought up a good point but "IF" comments in a minority of "consensus" are stronger, 'using policy backing', then consensus on a local or project level cannot trump policy or the more broad community consensus. In other words it can't change policy as that would be the wrong place. Even WP:IGNORE (that was not brought up) cannot be assumed and must have clear consensus if contested. Again, there is confusion as noted in the next section (Policy) that states: As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. There are three named instances that are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus., so apparently some "interpolating" is allowed but narrowly defined. It is my opinion that these two sections need some work. Until then we have to go with what we have until it is changed. -- Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural Overturn by reason of vague instructions leading to confusion, and because contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing. The discussion should be continued for more clarity now and for future discussions. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. In this like in everything else, Wikipedian guidelines are vague. They're like scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of mutually contradictory rules and guidelines, you can find support for any position. It's true that you can view Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus as directly contradicting WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS if you like, but I think that's the wrong way to understand it. You follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus to see if a consensus emerges, and if one doesn't, then thats when you move to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's the only way I can reconcile the two, anyway. I think it would be a serious mistake to clarify them any further, because when you codify the consensus-reaching process in too much detail, you're also handing an instruction manual to bad faith actors about how to game the system.
  When you say "contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing", I'm afraid I differ from you very strongly. I think that while the discussion here hasn't yet reached a conclusion on whether I was right on this particular matter, it does demonstrate a clear consensus that I may appropriately close difficult discussions: in other words, the community rejects your credentialism on this point.
  To my eyes, the other consensus that clearly emerges is that the outcome should be neither an overturn nor an endorsement but a relisting for a more widely-advertised discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I greatly respect S Marshall, and in particular his willingness to make hard closes and for his detailed explanation of those closes. But in this case I think I have to agree with MelanieN. The close was a bit too much of his own thoughts and not enough of the discussion that was had. It would have been much better as a comment/!vote rather than a close. As far as admin status goes, I trust S Marshall to make closes like this more than just about any admin. I just think he got this one wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And I think a relist with much broader advertising would be the best way forward. Second best is to go with NC. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Hobit that holding a second RFC might be helpful. I encourage anyone who would like to do that to stop by WP:RFC and discuss ways of making it clear. For example, "P1", which S Marshall endorsed, could usefully be followed with examples:
      • N Do not say "Founded in 1636, Harvard College is the original school of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and among the most prestigious in the world" (which was added to the lead of Harvard College almost nine years ago by EEng, who supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC)
      • N Do not say "It is highly selective, with fewer than five percent of applicants being offered admission in recent years" (same article, added by RedHotPear last year; "highly selective" is an widely used and objective ranking system)
      • N Do not say "For-Profit U has the weakest entrance requirements, the lowest graduation rates in Country, and the highest debt load among departing students. It was described by Paul Politician, in a lawsuit to strip its accreditation, as 'an exploitative diploma mill created for no obvious purpose beyond enriching its founder'." (that's "ranking" and "reputation", so would be banned even if it's true, and even if the article has little to say about the organization except that its rankings are poor and its reputation is worse)
    • I think that giving specific examples in terms of effects would help people decide whether their votes matched the outcomes they actually wanted to see. I suspect that a rule that says "Do not include USN&WR rankings" would gather more support than "Don't admit that Harvard is prestigious". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

      • First of all, the text I inserted back in 2011 [3] was, in fact, that Harvard College is one of the most presigious in the world, so I really don't know why I'm being dragged into this "prestige" business.
      • That was in the article Harvard College – at the time a complete mess I was taking a machete to (so that today it's no longer a complete mess but merely mostly a mess). At that time Harvard University had said that it was "one of the most prestigious in the world" since at least sometime in 2010, and I'm pretty sure that I simply plagiarized that.
      • I don't know where you get the idea that I supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC. I flatly opposed P1, and preferred P2 over P3.
      • You're just calling me out because you went to Yale.

      EEng 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK I'm happy this needs relisting. Please could a previously uninvolved person kindly close this discussion as "consensus to relist for a more widely-advertised discussion", vacate my previous close, and replace it with a pointer to WT:RFC for the drafting discussion that WhatamIdoing suggests?—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with relisting, but oppose a "new RfC". The consensus here is to overturn the close and reopen the discussion - not to abandon it and start a new one. And we should not add interpretation or examples, like the (deliberately ridiculous?) ones proposed by WhatamIdoing. The question should be the same as the one already answered by 15 people, and should not be changed or modified in a way which might oblige previous discussants to reconsider their comments. We should respect all the thought which has already gone into this. So, no pointer to a drafting discussion, no changes in the questions posed. Any discussion can be done in the Discussion section of the RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's not the consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

General i-ban question

General i-ban question (not seeking a sanction on anyone, and don't want to drag anyone to AN, so keeping this a general, theoretical question).

WP:IBAN says "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to ... undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means".

If User A makes an edit, and later User B modifies the wording (but does not remove it) after the iban - in a way that doesn't set off any other alarm bells (like happening frequently, stalking, harrassing, etc.) - are other admins generally considering this "undoing" an edit? It seems to go a little against the spirit, but not the letter. These editors have a pretty extensive subject area overlap, so this will probably come up again.

If it's not OK, that gives a first mover advantage to User A. If it is OK, it gives a second mover advantage to User B. So there is no "perfect" answer. I think both people want to abide by the iban, but I want to make sure I make clear to both of them what the boundaries of it are. So I'm not using the answers I get here to sanction anyone, just explain to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think the spirit of the restriction should be that if said modification is objected to by the corresponding party, it should be seen as having undone that edit, for all intents and purposes. El_C 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

But self-reverting should be enough. I do not recommend sanctions for that. El_C 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The trick, of course, is then "how does Editor A indicate that they object"? They can't talk to Editor B. They can't follow BRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a note to an uninvolved admin should be permitted as a go-between. But each case or possible pattern of cases, to be evaluated by its particular circumstances, of course. I just have not encountered anything like that before, so whinging it will probably be part of the process. El_C 20:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: that's kind of what I'm scared of; that I'm going to become the go-to arbiter of "particular circumstances". I'm a big fan of winging it, I may try to come up with rules for a new kind of Floquenban, and see if they'll both agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there is an iban in place, the second editor shouldn't have modified the first editors verbiage, as they probably do not need to be editing the same articles. The first can get an admin to ask the second to revert his modification. And is just one reason I hate ibans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: In this case (I know, I said I wouldn't get specific) both editors have already edited a very large percentage of the pages in the subject area. Avoiding articles the other has already edited isn't feasible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, rather than editing the other user's text, they should propose an edit on Talk and then if it has consensus someone else will do it - and if it doesn't, there's no risk of a revert triggering an IBAN violation. Guy (help!) 12:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• It depends on the edit entirely. If User B is correcting obvious spelling or punctuation errors as part of general improvements to the article then that shouldn't be a problem. If they have adjusted the words to alter the meaning, then that could be a serious violation and a sanction may need to be applied. If the minor spelling improvements are a single or very occasional instance, then probably best ignore it. If they are frequent or focused then it could be a deliberate attempt to game the system and annoy User A and a warning would be appropriate. Without an actual edit to look at then you'll have you use your own judgement. If unsure, and if not wanting to create drama, then send a diff of the edit(s) in a private message to an admin you trust. SilkTork (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • • One of the problems of an iban. It's like a bad divorce where the judge just tells the couple to divide it up yourselves, but don't talk to each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: I agree about context mattering in general. It hasn't been frequent, I do not think this was a deliberate attempt to game the system; if it was, I'd have blocked. I don't plan on sanctioning anyone this time, just trying to come up with guidelines for both of them for next time. I am afraid you're right, and if it happens again someone is going to come to me to decide if it's "serious enough" to be an i-ban violation. Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• My understanding has generally been that there is a bit of a first-mover advantage; if Editor A has substantively edited a page before Editor B did, then editor B needs to stop making substantive edits to the same page. IBANs can get ugly, but sometimes they are absolutely necessary (speaking as someone with respect to whom another editor has a one-way IBAN), and this is only way I can see to maintain fairness. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk)

• I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc Steverci has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc Steverci is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc Steverci, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  *self-trouts* apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk)

  I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Steverci, those edits you would like to revert are potentially problematic, but they are not Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia's definition. As for the listed articles, they do not provide a good impression of moving beyond the need for a topic ban. Have you considered bold work on areas other than Armenian wars and related? There's a lot of work needed on Armenian articles unrelated to various conflicts. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear specifically asked me for articles related to the topic ban, which includes "broadly constructed" "ethnic conflicts". I'm mostly interested in editing Armenian articles, but also other things. But above I was told that my edits weren't good because they were too safe, so I gave some articles of more potentially contentious subjects, and now you say that it looks bad that I'm appealing the topic ban because I'd like to edit articles related to the topic ban. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your opening post then where one of the topics you stated was covered in your topic ban was Armenia as a whole, rather than just conflict-related topics. Can you clarify what you take to be the scope of your current ban? I mentioned the above because dropping a topic ban of Armenia would allow freedom to edit a wide range of articles, without being drawn back to areas that bring higher incidences of editing disputes. Desiring to work in less problematic spaces within existing topic bans can be a reason to remove or reduce a ban. CMD (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can I clarify the exact TBAN phrasing as indef TBAN from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey - I don't think Steverci is trying to misconstrue or even being careless on it, just for specific discussion in case a narrowed TBAN is considered as an alternative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow TBAN? I'd be willing to narrow the TBAN to conflicts involving one or more of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey or factions within them. I don't know if Steverci has any interest in articles on Armenia/Azerbaijan outside of those areas, so it might be a pointless suggestion. I don't think there's sufficient activity to warrant removing the full TBAN on the truly problematic areas at this point. I'd be happy to say that Steverci can appeal in 3 months (whether the current TBAN is narrowed or not), rather than the usual 6, since that could give a decent editing basis - I haven't spotted any particular problems that warrant a long pause time between each appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be open to either the narrow TBAN or another three months. The former would allow me to clearly demonstrate the TBAN is no longer necessary. For the latter, I'd appreciate if we could define a minimal amount of required edit activity. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Deepfriedokra here. Tbans are given based on a history of problems. Tbans are lifted based on a history showing there is no longer a problem, and in this case, there isn't enough history to clearly demonstrate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 appeal

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

---

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From user talk:Catflap08:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so.

I would note:

• Email and talk page access was withdrawn in June 2019 due to allegations of abuse.
• Most of the complaints were probably by Hijiri88, now indeffed for violation of an IBAN.
• I think the last appeal; was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306 § Site ban appeal from Catflap08
• I lost the will; to live about halfway though this lot.

Catflap08 posted an unblock request which I declined procedurally because I think that, given the extensive past history, it's a heavy lift for a single admin. Guy (help!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the SiteBan
• Okay, I've read the modern stuff and the key bits of the original causes. I have not read every dispute. If we have someone active on de-wiki who could take a look there, that would be appreciated. Post-ban abuse is always concerning. However, I'm interested if there's an indication of major issues with any other editors in the past 2 years or so? If Catflap's primary difficulties were not being able to play nice with Hijiri88 that's concerning, but perhaps makes me more inclined to extend a chance with a risk factor now absent. TBAN should probably remain, with at least 6 months before it can be appealed to ARBCOM (I suppose it could be viewed as community 6 month TBAN that then lapses, leaving just the ARBCOM one). I'm not sure why catflap says "approved by a majority of fellow editors", but if we want a "create only be AfC" that seems reasonable. Willing to consider, but pending various bits of information. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have always felt that the ArbCom restriction from way back when was a bit unfair to Catflap, but there was little to be done about it, and the behavior that led to the block (linked above by Nosebagbear) was very unfortunate. But that was three years ago. I support letting Catflap back in. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Back when he was active, most of the problems were related to Hijiri88, I was involved with more of those issues than I care to recall. I want to be clear in stating that I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance, including Catflap, but it comes with a great deal of hesitation. Blocks are cheap but drama is expensive. While I don't remember all the details (and not willing to drag up the old discussions to refresh my memory), what sticks out most was how Catflap could be a parasite with administrative time. Do I think Catflap is a net positive? Barely, and sometimes, no. Still, if I apply the same principles here that I apply with other editors, then I'm 51% for lifting the community ban that is in place. And obviously this would be a last chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I've always thought interaction bans shouldn't become unappealable just because the other person has left Wikipedia. On the other hand, the admin actions leading to Hijiri88's indef block while individually defensible collectively amount to a rather cruel persecution and so I think a UTRS request in six months or so is both likely and has a good chance of success. And if these two editors then start screaming at each other again it'll be yet more needless drama. I'm with Dennis Brown on this one. 51% support. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like some comment from Catflap08 on their use of email Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed? to try and communicate with Hijiri88. While I believe they stopped when asked [4], I question the first email in 2017 and then even more so the one in 2018 which was after the one in 2017 had been responded to and as I understand it concerned edits to the English Wikipedia when they were long site banned at that point. While I understand that Catflap08 may not have been happy with Hijiri88 mentioning them, and IMO Hijiri88 did have a tendency to mention long blocked or banned editors a bit too much, ultimately when your site banned you've mostly lost the right to complain about it. Except perhaps if you feel those editors clearly violate some policy and guideline in which case it would be better to approach an admin or arbcom about that. Complaining to the person who made the comments who you had a long contentious history with when you weren't banned doesn't seem to be a good idea. BTW, in case there's some confusion, I believe the last email was in November 2018. Hijiri88 suggested that Catflap08 may have been using other accounts to email them, but there didn't seem to be good evidence for this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?. Also was Catflap08 really still following Hijiri88's activities here in June 2019, when Catflap08 had been long banned? These sequence of edits do seem a little weird [5] [6], and Catflap08's previous response was shall we say, less than ideal [7]. (The fact that Catflap08 was aware Hijiri88 mentioned them less so since they may have simply not turned off pings for en Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?.) I'm not really sure why Hijiri88 noticed what Catflap08 was up to on the German Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another place and time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Catflap08's problems stem, as others have said, from longstanding conflict with one other editor. The ban might have been necessary, but I can't help feeling it was a bit tough - based on people getting sick and tired of seeing the two of them constantly at each other's throats. That conflict is not going to continue now, at least not in the short term, for obvious reasons. With these things in mind, and having read Catflap08's comments (which I think show proper understanding and committment), I support lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Lifting ban per response below. NHS2008 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear: Do you have anything to add (since you said you'll consider)? Or else I'll close this up. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: - I think I could be posited as a "weak support of unban". The level of concerns would usually be associated with stringent unblock restrictions but I'm not sure any are coming to mind. Please do take this as support for any ERs that the unblocking admin feels are beneficial, otherwise Catflap should just take it as further clarity for care in minimising drama. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 response

Transcluded from User talk:Catflap08:

• Cat, you might want to address one question at WP:AN, which is reasonable to ask. You can reply here, someone will copy and paste your response. Your request has stalled until you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular question you have in mind? I will study the comments already made and hopefully will be able to address some issues by the weekend.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• • If you read the discussion, you will find that Nil Einne has raised some issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I will to my best to address questions and issues here. I am aware of the fact that you have to make a serious decision. Please also be aware of the fact that I did not leave the project completely even though there was a period that I was extremely peeved at Wikipedia (some of you even at me). I did continue my work on the German Wikipedia, which operates on a similar set of rules (similar, but not entirely the same). Lately I focused on translating articles (that’s before that virus kicked in). I still have a small stack of articles I’d like to translate into German (mostly Scotland related issue). That’s where I felt how the current ban affects me most – I cannot ask any questions on en.wikipedia. We are all facing a pandemic, so I am not in any rush with editing at all – at the moment I hardly even do any major edits on de.wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a purpose in life to me, it’s a hobby. Now and again I sit here to check pending edits only – that’s where the German and English Wikipedia run slightly different.

@ Nosebagbear I have no intention to see the TBAN being lifted any time soon. As far as I know that would need an extra appeal. Your idea with AfC is actually what I had in mind. There are a few stubs on the English Wikipedia that I could expand by translating existing articles. My sandbox is probably the best place for that.

@ Nil Einne I hope that I won’t come across as rude, but you are putting me in an awkward position. Your questions deal with a certain individual and as I already stated, I do not intend to continue that conflict … and as surprisingly this may come across … I do consider it bad practice to discuss an absent editor. This comment [8] reflects the advice given to me when I previously raised some of the incidents you mentioned to admins … I would summarise it as: let it go, don’t mention them. You are referring to my use of the Unreferenced Template on de.wikipedia. I do at times use that template. I use it when articles provide no references and sources whatsoever. If no references are being added (after a few weeks or months) I do at times nominate articles for deletion – usually its only then that somebody will come along and place a reference or two, which to me is fair enough then – problem solved. And you are right, on my German user page I list a number of keywords that make life on Wikipedia difficult, but also what may inspires one stay and continue. This is also why I created the article about a German organisation called HateAid [9]. I did bump into some, let’s say, right-wing motivated editors on de.wikipedia. It’s important not to fall in the same trap as they do. If ones actions are guided by anger nothing good is going to come out of that – I learned that the hard way on different occasions here on en.wikipedia. What another editor may have had on their mind or not I cannot answer. On de.wikipedia I tend to correspond in German, not in English. The editor you are referring to do have a talk page history over there too. Some edit summaries are in English. On de.wikipedia there is a button called “E-Mail an diesen Benutzer senden” (Email this user) and I made use of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:EW

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

---

User @Skllagyook: tends to edit war in his editions on proto-indo-European homeland topic. Please deal with this matter properly. Respectfully سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@سیمون دانکرک: I am not sure what you are referring to (when you state that I tend to edit war), but I explained repeatedly in the notes why your addition to the page (Proto-Indo-European homeland) was somewhat problematic. You seem to have continued to ignore/not engaged with the explanations I made (in notes) nor discuss in Talk, but continue to reinstated your addition. I have attempted to contact three other editors who have edited on this topic including one administrator (User:Puduḫepa, User:Joshua Jonathan, and User:Doug Weller) - here at 1. Hopefully thereby they/we can resolve the issue. Skllagyook (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You've been repeatedly ignored the content and references that I've presented even after I edited the so-called blog you mentioned and explicitly participating in editing war. It's an ongoing subject in the related page addressing administrators to deal with your case duly. From your actions and résumé I gather that you don't avoid Wikipedia:Canvassing. I think your attitudes is necessary to be encountered with and highly discouraged. Respectfully سیمون دانکرک (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Stalking?

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.

---

Someone is WP: stalking stalking me on Wilipedia and this should be worrisome to all. My IP address is been followed around by unknown editor(s). I leave it at that. Swiss romulus (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a lot more information than just this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about their edits as an IP, bt their talk page shows problems with edit warring and copying within Wikipedia w/o attribution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a boomerang might be due here this link sheds some light on the IP address he's talking about (look specifically at the section labeled "Banking") Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you aren't going to name names, provide diffs, and put a notice on their talk page, you are asking for sanction yourself. You've already wasted enough time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there, my take is that he's referring to me, as mentioned in this edit, where he also calls me an "(Israeli) Stalker". That's after I reverted a couple of his changes and warned him for edit warring. The anti-Israeli/Jewish theme also spans other edits, such as this. Apologies for the wording, but this user seems delusional. UCaetano (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Doomer1557

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 think we need an administrator to help @Doomer1557: on how to properly sign his posts. As I understand it, english isn't his first language & so his posts aren't in UTC. This isn't a big emergency, but it does get confusing for others. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And as they're now signing their posts, there's nothing to be done here, though it's really fucking tempting to get a boomerang out. I'm seeing GoodDay in far too many places making an utter bloody nuisance of themselves. I suggest they devote more time to content and less time (as in, no time at all) to their pseudo-administrator oar-sticking-in shit which is not their strong point. Nick (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Someone moved a Userpage

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.

---

Can any admin see this. This user has been moved by some autoconfirmed user with some 600+ edits. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Aaqib bhai, Dr-Taher is a global renamer. Presumably the user whose page was moved had requested a username change. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what the edit summary says, "Dr-Taher moved page User:Nasreen Zahid to User:Fatima Al Khalidi: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Nasreen Zahid" to "Fatima Al Khalidi")" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Editor JBW is heavy on Page oversight

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.

---

Benjamin Harrison V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Harrison_V#

Inflammatory notes made today on page and corrections made but this editor is heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanmemescorrecting (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive edits you've made have warranted warnings from JBW and myself. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And I've notified JBW of this post, which was a required action on your part. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OP placed ani notice on article page. At least they tried. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

So this is a content dispute over "inflammatory content". I don't know if it is sourced. To wit-- {

This was a stark contrast to Harrison's personal acceptance and practice of slaveholding, though he joined a 1772 petition to the King that he abolish the slave trade.

At least it isn't a WP:BLP --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Meanmemescorrecting edit warred to restore the ANI notice in the article. If anything, OP is being a little too intense over a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have less than a dozen edits but you found yourself at ANI already. Is this a request for boomerang or what? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• I did not see a missing sock anywhere, though coming here was fast work. Meanmemescorrecting, this is a content dispute, and you have been very rude. You need to discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article and seek WP:CONSENSUS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• At 15:43 once again edit warred and added the AN notice to the article. I will partial block for the article. Feel free to undo if you think me oerly high-handed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not at all, go ahead. Harrison may have held plenty ideas we would vehemently disagree with today, but still, repeatedly dragging him to ANI...?!  ;) ——Serial ^# 16:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

🤦 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. This whole section is about the fact that I am "heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction". I have never edited the article. In fact my only involvement has been to post a note to Meanmemescorrecting's talk page explaining that when one removes content from an article one should explain why, after another editor had reverted Meanmemescorrecting's editing. So that is what "heavily guarding this page" and "not allow[ing] correction" looks like? I wonder what it would have looked like if I had seen a new editor being reverted by someone else, not me, and in an attempt to help the new editor I had explained to him how he might be able to make such reverts less likely in future. JBW (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: You are one of the most helpful and patient admins I know. @Meanmemescorrecting: I find it frustrating when someone starts a thread like this and then absents themselves. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted another addition of commentary to the article Benjamin Harrison V, this time by 99.203.22.169. Can someone with more patience than I have please explain that such comments go on talk pages, if anywhere, rather than in articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained it to them, though I cannot claim exercising patience in doing so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Noe Meanmemescorrecting is indef'ed for block evasion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Main page/sandbox

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.

---

Is that suppose to popup on new page feed? I don't know what's going on there. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted that and block creator for a day. Weirdness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Weirdness explained. User unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Snowded Report followed by Kangaroo Court

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 is in session as I type this

I wish to question about the way administrators have handled the above report. Their comments made it pretty clear that any semblance of fairness or even-handedness was completely absent from the off. The blunt outcome was that within less than an hour of reporting a personal attack I was told, alongside several other unsubstantiated accusations, I was under imminent threat of being blocked if I didn't withdraw the report immediately. This lack of neutrality has been compounded by a failure to take proper account of the examples I cited and also by making further completely spurious accusations.

My report was made after an accusation of dishonesty was not withdrawn and then was picked up by another user with a grudge who has been trying to get me blocked since day one. I made the ANI report as a last resort but the conduct of some of the admin team is simply shocking for people who are supposed to be the guardians of Wikipedia's objectives.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this ANI thread where OP refused to provide dif's and whose own conduct is under review.]] --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also extensive related discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• What Okra said. There is a debate whether Sirjohnperrot needs a tban or an indef, and he has yet to substantiate his claims there. But by all means, everyone go and jump in the discussion. Wouldn't be ANI without a crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  If I join the kangaroo court, do I get my own kangaroo? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport Tie me kangaroo down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's BYOK, so it's up to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Particularly , User talk:Sirjohnperrot#July 2020, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Conflict of interests disclosure, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Final warning, and User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Illustration. Yes, more eyes is not a bad idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out re the above that I have repeatedly sought to provide the evidence asked for, calling it 'diffs' was puzzling since none of the posts had been deleted and it is simply untrue that have I refused to do anything. These people just make up accusations as they go along - libel threats, COI issues, making aspersions, using 'passive agressive vitriol' now I refused to provide difs apparently - not a grain of truth in any of it. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've started a poll for a community indef block. This way no single admin can undo it, and the community is empowered and can decide the issue of block and/or unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Fascism

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 definition of fascism is incorrect and appears to be someone's opinion. It does not line up with encyclopedia Britanica, nor merriam Webster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.133.62 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: You should bring this up on the article's talk page. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Need close: Requested lift of TBAN on ANI 28 June 2020

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 started my request on this ANI thread, which was the board of my original ANI and the closer wrote that I could appeal "here" (which I interpreted as on ANI board). There have been several responses in support of lifting my TBAN. I am not sure of the process of how it gets closed. Please let me know if there is some other step I need to do. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I encourage an uninvolved administrator to close this request, since the consensus is pretty easy to see, I think. I cannot do so, since I am involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll close shortly Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Reopen Site ban proposal: SashiRolls?

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls

Procedural..to maybe help as alternative to the Arbcom case request. No problem if you say no. From the previous one take it as the community having decided that some type of sanction is called for. Reopen (based on discussion ar arbcom) would be to deermine what that sanction sould be. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. Some kind of review somewhere ought to occur. Paul August ☎ 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth it or would it just be unnecessary drama, if the case is going to ArbCom anyway? Drama would be extended over 3 sections (the original ban just a few weeks ago, the ArbCom case opened one day ago, and then a reopened site ban proposal). Perhaps it'd be most appropriate to reopen only if AC decline to take the case, and if there's a general feeling of procedural error. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Leave it at Arbcom...for now and see if they accept. If they do, then this discussion would be, if not moot, then certainly duplicatory; if they don't, then we can carry on here as we would have done had the RfA never been filed. ——Serial ^# 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leave at Arbcom. I didn't get the impression that the ANI was reaching a strong conclusion, and if anything, might probably have gotten further to a no consensus had it stayed open longer? However, the issues are material, repetitive, and complex. ArbCom is a better forum to resolve such things imho. Britishfinance (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course! My idea is that this merely offers another option for Arbcom North8000 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Requesting an administrator 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.

---

Could another admin please review a request by the user FTVA. I blocked them as a sock of Shaddai Wright and FTVA Official. Keep in mind, according to a (now deleted) bio this user created, they are 13 years old. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Declined the request (obviously) and removing talk page access due to that ridiculous request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Unrelated edit 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.

---

In line with Template:Confirmed, would it be possible someone add a parameter to the template, so one can change "Unrelated" to their desired text? As the talk page for the said template has not been viewed since 2010 I thought it would be more worthwhile posting here, as it would get a faster reply. Thanks --DL6443 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@DL6443: I've put in an edit request on the page for you, as that's the right process to do this, rather than an AN post. Note that the talk page not having been visited or not having watchers won't be an issue, because TPERs are automatically added to a backlog category that's monitored by template editors and sysops. Hope that helps! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Thanks a lot --DL6443 08:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Question about File:Simulated LCD.png

Hi! On Latvian Wikipedia they have a file (lv:Attēls:LCD displeja simulacija.png) that I think may be a copy of File:Simulated LCD.png. Could someone check if it is the same file? If it is perhaps it could be undeleted and moved to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Done It looks the same, and the Latvian version actually gives credit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello!

I would like to create a page for the South Korean variety show House on Wheels but, when I try to, I am redirected to the "Permission error" page with the following message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Is there a reason this page should not be created? Thanks! - Seokgjin (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Long story, not that interesting. Here, I got you started: House on Wheels. Happy editing! El_C 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it's really old. (That was before my time, and I've been here for 14 years.) I was surprised to discover that the entry I expected to find on WP:LTA is not there, and I am pretty sure that it once was, but I'm not going to plow through the edit history of all of the pages associated with the LTA archive. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Post-move cleanup required for draftified article John Chiminski?

I'm not sure what to do here ... it looks like an editor moved John Chiminski to Draft:John Chiminski without requesting a delete of the redirect. It seems to be attracting further edits [10]. I'm not requesting a G6 speedy redirect because clearly it will be considered controversial at this point. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bri, nope, doesn't seem controversial to me - it was a copypaste from draft back to mainspace, so G6 is appropriate. Will do shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I did nuke some of your cleanup in the process...let me know if you want me to send you the article as it stood after your changes. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No need, thanks; I think I can remember what I did. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

GT Racing: Motor Academy

Hello,

For this page, I think we could speed things up. On Wd, it is already proposed for deletion. The subject is clearly promotional and not encyclo. In any case, it is not intended to be remembered. On WD, when there is a sitelink, you have to wait until the article is deleted to delete that of wd and this article does not take the path. I’m not totally familiar with your local traditions, what do you think ? Best regards.

—Eihel (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eihel, I'd try WP:AFD if I were you. I don't know what Wd is and it doesn't really matter. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Does not meet WP:G11. Legacy article, unsourced in current version, WP:AFD is the way to go. Like Drmies says. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have taken note of your comments, I thank you @Drmies and Deepfriedokra:. As I wrote to you, I am not completely familiar with enwp and I thought I would have help until the end. "it doesn't really matter", of course, but for me this is an obvious case and WD, which means Wikidata (therefore still part of Wikimedia), can only erase this obvious case if there is no sitelink. sd done. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, for my mistake @Drmies and Deepfriedokra:, in fact the wd element was linked to a redirect to this page. The item (spam) is now deleted. Thanks for your help. —Eihel (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by FortniteRishabS0122

FortniteRishabS0122 (talk · contribs)

I made this report in March of this year about an editor using multiple accounts for disruptive editing, it appears the editor is back again with a new account called SuperRC (talk · contribs). The editor also using other accounts as well, look at this range here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SPI is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Ad Orientem has already blocked SuperRC indefinitely and the IP range is blocked for one month. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

Changes at the WikiEd Foundation

The WikiEd foundation formally announced a reduction in scope in how WikiEd will be supporting students for the coming year at the education noticeboard. As student editors can impact a number of administrative areas and functions I thought that announcement might be of interest to some editors who frequent this board and not that one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Upload request for protected file

I am trying to upload a new, higher-quality version of File:Bastard‼ Heavy Metal, Dark Fantasy vol01.jpg, but I am blocked from doing so (I assume because of the page's title). What should I do? — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As it's non-free and uploaded under fair use rules, we deliberately only use a low-resolution version of artwork such as this (as you can see in the comment in the licensing section). A higher-quality version is possibly not appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oh, I am aware of the NFCC low-res criterion. It's just that I wanted to upload a low-resolution rescale from a scan with better lighting/colors from the Kindle version. — Goszei (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that's good - I'll leave it for someone who knows how to solve your problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Goofdawg

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

This looks a lot like a sleeper sock, but regardless, I have blocked as WP:NOTHERE because I cannot work out what the hell he thinks he's playing at. Example: [11]. Anyone who thinks they can sort this out without needing to maintain a block, is most welcome to lift it. Guy (help!) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I was actually trying to work out what the heck was going on myself when I saw your block. It was the edit on Serial Number 54129's page that caught my attention and then I saw the edit war on Paul Scholes. Has been reblocked now with TP access revoked so think the ship has sailed. Glen 12:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on the edit pattern and the specific content they were trying to add, I'm certain they were a sock of User:Riku maina, but that's not a metaphysical certainty without an IP check. – PeeJay 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, if you feel they're the same person it might be worth flagging it with {{uw-agf-sock}} tags on each of their talk pages so it's on record if they reappear. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston

I not so concerned, but I have a feeling that there maybe an editor on username and logging out to edit from an IP. I have a feeling there is something a little fishy, could be just me, thought I post here just in case. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's on me. I've restored the indefinite semi that got interrupted with my previous full protection. El_C 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, sometimes I think some people have some kind of political agenda on these types of articles. Thanks again. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, Govvy. El_C 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, surely not. Guy (help!) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. Clear block evasion by User:Orchomen, who edits from the same area and was most recently blocked as Blackumbra. Sro23 (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Attention needed to formal closure request

Hi, I started an RfC 28 days ago and requested a formal close due to the controversial history of the issue. I made the request on June 15th, and an administrator left a comment on June 23rd proposing a close with a limited scope. I accepted this, but the request has not been touched by an administrator since. It's not my intent to jump the queue, but I think that the outstanding need for a close may have been overlooked. Other editors are getting frustrated by the wait. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

TikTok vandalism

I am trying to take a wikibreak, but there is one thing I need to share and request before I do. I've set up edit filter 1071 (hist · log) to track the pages being vandalised by the malicious followers of that TikTok person. It's averaging around 2 edits per hour, with multiple vandals every time a new video is released. It will not be effective in 'disallow' mode. If you have access to private filters, as all admins do, please watch this filter. For other users, if you watch edit filter logs, please keep an eye out for this one. I've been basically semi-protecting any article being edited for a couple of weeks, and blocking many of the users involved (though the latter is probably optional). If admins and EFHs don't watch the filter then it might have to be turned into a public filter, which I'd rather not do, however feel free to decide to do that anyway because it will probably still mostly work. Have fun. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz I'm not sure why an anti-TikTok Troll edit filter should be private. SO when I look at the AbuseLog, what am I going to see? Just a visible FIlter 1071 or a TIkTok vandalism filter description? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You would see the name of the filter which is TikTok vandalism. It's a fair question about whether it's private and I've been on the fence about it while it was being actively monitored. The reasons for it being private are mainly tactical. However, it does rely on a certain level of ahem unsophistication, so I've now made it public, which anyone is again welcome to change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay so while it's public, let's just hope no TikTokers know about abuse filters. revert block ignore, report to AIV on sight without warnings. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think TikTok trolls know how to check (and read) edit filters. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK well let's stop before they start going into the "behind the scenes" namespace and find out we are talking about this, and figure out that there's an edit filter and learn to circumvent it. That's why it was private in the first place. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Too late. They've already identified ANI, lads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.114.201 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Template editor

I propose that The Rambling Man (TRM) be granted the template editor user right. His raising of many issues at WP:MPE shows that he has a need for the right. TRM is a former admin, who lost his admin privileges about 4 years ago due to an ARBCOM case. It is for this reason that I feel that any granting of advanced permissions needs to be done with the consensus of the community at large. I believe that granting the user right to TRM will result in a reduction of workload at MPE and ITNC, as TRM will be able to make productive edits in those areas which he currently cannot do. I believe that he will not abuse the user right if granted it. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers. And if any admin is available now, there are a few issues I noted two days ago which are currently live on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: please, no half measures, restore the administration rights also. ——Serial ^# 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added the flag, since it does not require a vote and is clearly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, as I feared, this doesn't mean I can address the errors on the main page as we speak. Perhaps an admin could help with that please? And Serial Number 54129, thanks!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: As much as I appreciate TRM's contributions to MP and otherwise, all main page elements are cascade-protected, so TPE is pointless. (the correct measure is in what SN said) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't do what Serial Number 54129 suggested. So The Rambling Man will just have to run for admin again. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure how well that would go, but there'd be a support from me - if there's anyone who needs the admin tools for the volunteer work they've chosen to do (and do so thoroughly well), it's TRM. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This is why we needed WP:Main page editor. Wouldn’t have had to put TRM through the RfA bunfight. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• As PK3 notes, this is why Valereee and I proposed creating the WP:Main page editor group: TRM is among those who needs this userright. No objections to him receiving template editor, but it doesn't address any of the main page issues; in fact in this use case, it wouldn't help at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree that we now have at least one example of where WP:Main page editor makes sense. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be accurate, TRM is the probably the only editor trusted enough to have MPE as an ex-admin/crat. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hardly. There are several others, who I am not going to name because this isn't a discussion where anything can come of doing so, but who've done more work with main page content than the vast majority of admins. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You missed my point, I still don't trust them enough to have them edit the main page (probably). In contrast, I can trust TRM because of their previous positions of trust (remember that all this is just my opinion, the community might have a different view and the point of having MPEs was one that the community denied). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: with his disruptive editing

This user keep changing topics according his own point of view. For example "Syria" into "Rojava", or "Turkey or "Southeastern Anatolia Region" into "Turkish Kurdistan" as if these things are even a country, not even a historical region, it's like calling Tabriz is a city in Iranian Azerbaijan instead of Iran. Ins't this disruptive? This user has ongoing disputed with different users in different pages, please check his history. Sometimes, he also adds some tricky stuff meantime his editing, which the source doesn't even talk about. Beshogur (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Tabriz article says it's in Iranian Azerbaijan. Konli17 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan is a province, administrative division, so your suggestions are not valid. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan Province is very much a province and administrative division. However, it makes its appearance in the first sentence of the Tabriz article, not the second, detracting somewhat from the validity of your argument. Konli17 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is good examples [[12]] [[13]],where he deletes large sources information. You can see what his POV is. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User Konli17 was recently blocked for edit-warring behavior. They seem to be on an aggressive POV crusader, and their contributions sound more like propaganda publishers websites/fora. See this page they created. More edit-warring examples here and here, in addition to the articles pointed out above. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI:The Block of Konli17 was quite unusual as both editors (Konli17 and Amr Ibn) reverted the same amount of times and at the end Amr Ibn didn't make any explanations at the tal page, edit warred and reported the editor at the ANI where the active editor (Konli17) at the Tell Abyad talk page was blocked for 48h for reverting 9 times, actually both reverted 8 times (without breaking the 1RR rule) but only Konli17, the active user at the talk page was blocked. I too had my issues with Amr Ibn, Amr Ibn reverted me twice more without leaving an explanation at the talk page even though he was warned not to revert by the blocking Sysop of the first editor. I adverted the blocking Sysop of it, but to no avail. The Tell Abyad page dispute is currently at the DRN (request filed by me) and is awaiting a solution. I advise the Sysops to check the available (=provided) information about the conflicts mentioned here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise chronicle: I did provide thorough answers and explanation on the Tel Abyad Talk page starting by this edit. Your unfounded claims here are no surprise to me given that you are the other user involved with Konli's POV campaign, reverting my Washington Post story from the Tel Abyad page and calling it nonsense, may be because it goes against the propaganda sites you both prefer using. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that editor Konli17 is on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing his POV. He needs to stop. The last block did not seem to do anything. Tradedia^talk 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them?

Hi all,
Late June 2020 and early July 2020 a whole lot of draftspace pages have been created with the format Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number). Examples:

• Draft:Sample page/83001398
• Draft:Sample page/91128286

I am teh fail when it technical matters like this, and despite the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" message I don't have a clue which editor to notify about this discussion.
Could you possibly look into this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

After a little personal investigation, these sample pages seem to be created/edited when an IP user clicks the "Edit using wiki markup" button in Help:Introduction to Wikipedia. Gricehead (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, that was implemented on 16 June 2020 by Sdkb (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Shirt58: Yes, that was added via this discussion. There has been some follow-up discussion at the Technical Pump here, although that seems to have stalled a bit. Those two discussions should hopefully explain the change, and if you have any additional questions feel free to ask. Help would certainly be welcome if anyone wants to pick up where the VPT discussion left off. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's time to BRD revert User:Sdkb's change there - these are creating a mess and the process should be better designed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, when we left off at VPT, you were going to try to see if there was a way to link to User talk:x.x.x.x/sample page that cleared the content there and then preloaded the sample page. Did you ever find anything on that? Also, was the idea to use an adminbot to auto-delete the pages after a preset period deemed viable?

For now, we can switch anytime to directing IP editors to a subpage of their talk page if draftspace is creating too much trouble. There are several pages later on in the tutorial that use a similar setup to the present one for a different sample page (e.g. an image-filled page at the end of the images tutorial), but the number of IPs reaching these seems to be vanishingly small, since most editors dedicated enough to keep reading also followed the instruction shown to IPs at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia to log in. The system seems to be working fine for the large number of editors who do log in, so hopefully that part can be retained. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Also should speedy delete all these drafts: Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page/ - who would ever find these to resume working on them with nonsense page titles? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, and apologies for sending User talk:Primefac a teh random "{{subst:AN-notice}}". Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

8 years-undetected hoax article

I guess the hoax I nominated for speedy deletion deserves to be at WP:HOAXLIST since it went undetected for 8 years. Page title: Battle of Ceber –User456541 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I added it ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is a hoax, see pl:Bitwa pod Cebrem as well as pl:Przyczółek_baranowsko-sandomierski, which mentions it. If it's a hoax, it's one that's well-integrated and sourced on Polish Wikipedia. I'm not qualified to assess the reliability of those sources though...paging K.e.coffman, who I know edits in the WW2-in-Poland area. I'm going to restore the page for now so it can be checked over. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is included in e.g. this book from 2000 or this one from 1966, no idea why it was considered a hoax and speedy deleted. It was created by User:Halibutt, who was a well-respected editor, so unlikely to create hoaxes. At the very least this deserved an AfD as there was nothing blatant about the supposed hoax. Perhaps User:Koridas and User:User456541 can explain their reasoning? Oh, and User:Anthony Bradbury, who actually speedy deleted the page? Seems like a rather poor decision... Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about Koridas, but User456541 has some issues with speedy deletions, per his talk page. That's actually how I found this - he unnecessarily G8-tagged the talk page of an article I had tagged as A7, so I checked his contribs and found more issues. There's a number of messages on his talk page from people asking him to stop CSD-tagging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources, but then ReFill let me down, naturally...I'll try again in a bit. ——Serial ^# 15:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I dropped a note at WT:MILHIST for further investigation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Large backlog at Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

As of this message, the speedy deletion category Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, with its subcategories, contains a rather large backlog of 2,411 pages. (See Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.) Administrator assistance to clear out this backlog would be appreciated, considering that it has to be done by administrators since clearing the entries requires page deletions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it later this week. Anybody else interested in helping out should first familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons. Files which were inappropriately moved to Commons must not be deleted locally and should be nominated for DR on Commons. -FASTILY 23:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities

Hello, am looking for an administrator to please review Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Is Walter Breuning's death record available on Ancestry.com? and worse, the follow-up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#If someone has esophagus problems and they proceed to die from starvation, is the likely explanation for their death that they starved themselves on purpose?. Could this speculation about the death and possible suffering of a recently deceased person please be removed? I posted this request first at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reference_desk/Humanities and they asked me to put it here. Thanks 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Breuning died 9 years ago, so he's not covered by our BLP policy which defines "recently deceased" as having died less than two years ago. Still, I blanked the second discussion per WP:NOTFORUM because it's unrelated to the encyclopedia and just generally in poor taste; if anyone cares it's in the page history, but I dont find retaining or encouraging off-topic discussion like that particularly valuable. The first discussion I've left alone since a request for particular public records is within our scope, so despite the subject matter, it's still worthwhile for improving the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Reference desk is for off-topic discussion, unrelated to building Wikipedia. WP:FORUM specifically gives Reference desk as the alternative venue for users looking to make article talk pages into Q&A fora. "Poor taste" sounds like WP:IDLI. Since WP:BLP doesn't apply and WP:RD is open for all kinds of discussion as long as they remain a dispassionate intellectual exercise, I do not see any valid rationale for removal. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that being the point of the reference desk. If you one wants to wax philosophical about whether people who cannot eat are technically killing themselves, take it to a forum or a chat room. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and WP:RD doesn't get a pass from that just because they say they do. Pointing to IDLI sounds like WP:ATAATA. Participants in that discussion characterized it as both cruel and off-topic, so there's an independent reason for my characterization of out of scope and poor taste beyond my personal feelings. You're free to revert, but please explain how that discussion has contributed to the encyclopedia? — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the pointless speculation. Those who frequent the ref desks, and those that merely like them, have often been unable to work out when discussion should stop and I support admin action to remind everyone that the ref desks are part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if you felt attacked. I have no interest in reverting, I wasn't participating there, nor had I even seen it before your edit summary caught my eye; I was only trying to get some clarification as I didn't see the removal justified per WP:RD/G. Discussions on RDs rarely contribute to improving the articles; when they do, it's only incidental. And only the main namespace is the encyclopedia. The question was somewhat loaded and the discussion does try to veer toward philosophising on potentially controversial issues, but volunteers do also get it back in control keeping it informative, citing Wikipedia articles and science behind the topic. (I hope by you, you meant the generic you and not me. In any case, I would like to clarify that I do not go about the internet looking for places to "wax philosophical about whether people who cannot eat are technically killing themselves") Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I did mean the generic you, and I've replaced it with the third person to remove that ambiguity. Sorry for coming off so confrontational. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

NOTFORUM bans generic discussion on article talk pages, but allows specific content questions to be asked and answered at Refdesk. The removed thread was not a "specific" question, but a "general" question, seeking personal opinions, interpretations, and debate. Refdesk is analogous to a library reference desk, in which factual questions are provided with factual, source-based answers. It is not a NOTFORUM-exempt forum for general discussion, speculation and debate. That discussion was inappropriate if not trollish. The IP's request to shut it down is appropriate. Wugapodes' removal was appropriate. Reverting the removal, although Wug has allowed for such, would be disruptive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm, that answers all my questions (thought or spelled out). Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, administrators, for looking after this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect non-admin closure

Moved to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July#Gráinne Ní Mháille Primefac (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What to do about RHaworth's talk page

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 most of you will remember, one of the most prolific admins in deletion, RHaworth (talk · contribs), was desysopped earlier this year, and is still getting regular traffic to his talk page from new and newish users asking about getting articles undeleted or pages salted. I've fielded a couple of these, as have others, but it would be helpful to get a few more eyes looking at. I would not be in favour of putting any sort of talk page messages or edit notices saying something like "This user is not an admin, please go elsewhere" as I'm not sure people would read it, plus it rubs RHaworth's face in it. I think just managing them as and when they come in will do for the time being. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist and will try to remember but teaching Japanese toddlers the word "no" for 40 hours a week makes it unlikely that I'll catch many of the requests. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's still on my watchlist and I've fielded some requests. The only problem is that many of the requests I've looked at were good deletions of unsalvageable non-notable individuals and companies where the deleted article would be a lousy starting point for a re-write. I suppose we could just REFUND on request and count on the AfC process to catch the dross, but it feels a little unfair on them. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Even in that case, a holding reply of "This article has more puffery than Puff Daddy eating Sugar Puff sandwiches with Puff the Magic Dragon while wearing a puffer jacket" (albeit maybe phrased more diplomatically) would still be useful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe archiving his talkpage and changing the edit notice would help. Also is there a userpage template to say that someone is less active? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• He still has the admin/mop pip in the header of the page. There is no policy against that, that I'm aware of, and I doubt that is the source of all these questions, but wanted to bring it to his and other's notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Maybe somebody who had a good relationship with him should email him and ask him how he would like to proceed? He's still quasi active. His last edits were just a couple of weeks ago. I get that the needs of the project outweigh the needs of the individual editor, but hijacking somebody's talk page isn't very nice. We should at least make some attempt to contact him before we do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think he will see it in this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like:

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess you're either left with not putting a notice on his talkpage, and relying on talkpage stalkers to work through the detritus, or adding a notice so editors aren't wasting their time in posting requests there. So a choice between tough love or soft hate. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection to adding Ritchie333's banner. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That notice seems pretty reasonable. If they have an issue with it they can let us know here or just remove it from their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I concur. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put the banners up, as there have been no objections. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I do think that when an admin is desysopped or leaves there should be someone assigned to their workload. I actually thought about running for RFA when I found out he had been desysopped, but then realised I'm too chicken to go through the process.--Launchballer 12:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we're an all volunteer work group - I don't see how that would be doable. — Ched (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Image competition?

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

I noticed this user adding very large amounts of images to articles, almost all of which were poorly formatted without captions, at high rates of speed, with an edit summary including "#wpwp #wpwpng". After asking the user (see this thread on their talk page) and some asking around, I found out that this is apparently related to a contest at meta: m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos. There are apparently cash prizes for quantity of images added, with very poorly spelled out rules. This seems like a pretty terrible idea just begging for low-quality dumping of images into articles without understanding how to do so correctly or appropriately. I don't know how widespread the problem is or if it's worth setting up an edit filter, but others may want to be aware of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of them doing it. Thought it might have been a sock-farm at first, but I guess a competition for doing it sounds more likely. Érico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another one. There have been others on my watchlist in the last 48hrs or so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a pain, you'd think they would at least add a guideline on the quality of images? Completely random images and unnecessary ones are being added to bring up the count. I personally agree with Deacon Vorbis, it is quite a terrible idea. I suggest perhaps suspending the competition until some proper rules about the quality and type of images that can be added are created, as well as saying that poor and low-quality images will not be counted into the competition. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed this on my watched pages, especially as non-free images are being uploaded. Here is another uploader: Eluwa Stephanie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both the edit filter and suspending the competition sound like good ideas. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Add edit filter blocking those hashtags sounds like it could be urgency. In the meantime, how does one get a meta-organised competition to stop? It's outrageous that there was no notice, or warning, here. Pinging User:T Cells who, while inactive here, seems to have had a role in its organisation. ——Serial ^# 14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And there you have it. Turns out that T-cells is none other than User:Wikicology, whom some might remember as frequenting these parts. Specifically, this board. ——Serial ^# 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:, I've put a notice on Meta, they seem to be quite active there. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Berrely, I meant to but got distracted by the WC saga...again  :) ——Serial ^# 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought Wikicology was already site banned? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This edit summary has been showing up at RC all day. I do not know if the most recent site banner has indirectly led this group of accounts to upload images. I checked a few of those, and they could appear to be of less than ideal quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock-farm? Lol, no. It's a annual campaign that occurs on all wikis. First, the images that I add to the articles are adequate. Second, as sysop at Commons I know the copyright rules very well. Anyway, If adding appropriate photos to articles is a problem here, it certainly won't be for me, because in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. Regards, Érico (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is some of the poorest content organisation I've seen, I mean, what did they think what did they think was going to happen? This was literally begging to occur, giving a cash prize to add any images to a site with 6 million articles that anyone can edit — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the account Joy Ayara was created two years ago, but began editing only two days ago. It would be quite unusual to participate in the campaign at such an unusually fast edit rate and suspicious manner of editing. Could there be other sleeping socks around? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Érico: are you saying that these additions will be welcomed? Irrelevant and useless images that offer no use to the reader? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't say that. My actual quote: the images that I add to the articles are adequate [...] in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. I am not referring to other participants, but to me, because I was mentioned above (by user Lugnuts). Érico (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you search mainspace for #WPWP #WPWPUIL there are loads of examples of not just crappy images, but the hashtag being inserted into the article itself. Ffs... ——Serial ^# 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is another uploader: Hormorkunmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again, the account was created in 2018 but edited barely anything until two days ago. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Before people rush to judge the whole competition, how about some data? The spot check I just did returned 9/10 productive additions. I don't doubt there are lousy images being added and people trying to game the system for prizes, just as there are people who game everything about Wikipedia and add lousy content all the time. Every competition we do, edit-a-thon, upload drive, etc. results in some amount of undesirable content ... and a lot of desirable content. it's when it's more trouble than it's worth that it merits some sort of intervention. And for that I'd expect to see more than a handful of anecdotes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this. Deacon Vorbis highlighted this, where they have literally just taken a photo from the lead and put it in the infobox. This is inevitable, if there is a prize, people will willingly put useless content into articles to get it. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: most contributors are probably submitting and adding good photos, but 9/10 is still a lot, just look at the damage 1 person has done. Unless some proper guidelines are made, this will keep happening. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this - sooo a competition brought hundreds of new contributors, most of whom are adding content productively. This is... not a problem. FWIW I don't disagree with having clearer guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, can we just take a second to acknowledge what @Serial Number 54129: just said? Look at this — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, those new users seem to not follow other policies and guidelines regarding the insertion of photos in articles. And many of them came here for only one purpose, which is to win prizes. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And many photos being inserted into infoboxes with the wrong syntax - example Blessatayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not a massive issue in terms of visual output but a large job to clear up. I'm not against adding decent images to more article, I'm in favour of it but I wish the competition designers had been clearer about the instructions and communicated that it was going to happen. Nthep (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd think they'd at least drop a note on ANI or something? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So looking at the most recent activity, we have User:Bukky658 adding hundreds of images with the wrong syntax, and User:Blessatayo doing the same. An edit filter blocking this hashtag seems rather urgent. Fram (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure blocking would help, since they might upload anyway with a different hashtag. Perhaps logging is better? I guess if the hashtag is #WPWP, it would follow they won't mass-upload if they can't use the hashtag. Block/throttle seems fine? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the instructions at the competition explicitly state "Include the hashtag #WPWP in the edit summary of all articles improved with images. Then click on "Publish changes"." so stopping them from using this hashtag would be helpful. Fram (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fram, Procrastinating Reader, I will whip one up shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the low quality ones tend to be non-confirmed and adding pictures at a rapid speed, I'm thinking perhaps maybe a throttle of more than X per hour from non-confirmed accounts would get rid of the crap from the contest, whilst making it possible for those that perhaps know what they're doing to contribute? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Tracking as 1073 (hist · log) (log-only mode for now), if someone wants to whip up a variant of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed for this filter I'll put it into play as soon as I'm satisfied with the filter's performance. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, alongside edit summaries, some users have been inserting the hashtag into articles and talk pages as well, so it might be good to make sure the edit filter accepts those namespaces. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also happy to just have it as a warning - "hey, you, welcome to Wikipedia, you appear to be participating in whatever competition, please keep in mind that images should be relevant, yadda yadda yadda" GeneralNotability (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess see how it goes in log? If, indeed, the majority of contributions are positive and it's just a few users with a large number of edits between them making problematic edits, they the problematic bunch can just be handled manually. If it's a lot of different users, then perhaps move to warn / throttle. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: If I read the filter correctly, that only catches edits where the hashtag uses uppercase letters ('#WPWP' not '#wpwp'). Lowercase versions should probably be included as well. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Majavah, I'll double check, but I thought I used irlike (case-insensitive regex match). GeneralNotability (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No, having people add relevant images to an article but using the wrong syntax is not reason to shut down the initiative they're participating in. Syntax issues can be fixed with AWB. Finding images to use in an article and adding them to the best of your ability cannot. The only actual problems I've seen here are (a) someone who added duplicate images to articles -- now blocked, and (b) someone adding "#WPWP" to article text -- now blocked. Oppose filtering out the competition without more evidence of net harm. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I left a msg on the talk page for Bukky658 asking them to use the correct infobox image syntax (they were also putting images into |image_flag= that aren't flags). The last half-dozen edits were to add images AFTER the infobox. MB 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: is right, this isn't like the TikTok swarming, because there are actually people who are contributing with good images. This hole is proving quite hard to get out off. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why the mechanics at Meta do not say anything about the eligibility of participants. For example, the user has been around for a few months and has made at least a few hundred edits already. It's probably a reason why we are seeing an influx of new users whose edits are mostly related to this contest. For some comparison, ArbCom elections have eligibility criteria. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

LSGH, we're not really electing anything. It's a contest to encourage a drive to create content. Or rather, make use of already-created content. There's no eligibility criteria to edit Wikipedia. The issue here is that some people only see the cash bounty and run in to add pictures for the money, rather than spend any time familiarising with the guidelines first. But any attempt to add a guideline on activity prior to the contest date would just limit the number of participants, including the good ones. I think it's a slightly iffier problem than it appears at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that cash prize, and then some would just run away with it rather than stay around and contribute productively elsewhere. Maybe the quantity criteria there is being taken for granted in order to just add photos (whether they are helpful or not) without even having experienced dealing with them before the contest. That probably shows why they may be placed improperly or are not even given proper captions, which other more experienced editors would need to fix. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding on, often with campaigns like this, one of the goals is to bring in new editors (for example, for Wiki Loves Monuments on the Commons, in many nations the majority of participants are brand new to the project despite the relative complexity of uploading images + dealing with copyright/licensing). Contests like WPWP that involve simple editing are a nice way to engage new editors, but yes, you do end up with some who don't grasp the rules and make poor edits. Contests like Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Earth, etc. on Commons result in the upload of hundreds (probably thousands?) of copyvios and out-of-scope images, but it's taken on the chin and dealt with on a per-file/per-user basis since the net positive is considered worth it. Spot-checking through recent hashtag contributions, I think the vast majority of contributions are positive, and that shutting it down is an overreaction. Adding a tag for #wpwp edits would be helpful for patrolling these edits. I think GeneralNotability's idea above to have an edit filter warning with advice for new users is a good one as well. For WPWP, I think a good path forward would be to expand the "How to participate" rule set to include more explicit notes on image relevant and quality, requiring captions for all image additions, and disqualification criteria (i.e. adding multiple inadequate images may result in the user being disqualified). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone curious about the significance of the "NG" in the "#wpwpng". It's the 2 letter country code for Nigeria, and they have extra prizes on top of the general contest prizes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hardly surprising as the organiser founded Wikimedia Nigeria. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh - just saw this. I'm in the process of one-by-one rolling back all the images additions made by Godstime Elijah - several dozen just rammed in a) apparently randomly chosen by keyword, b) without regard to quality, c) without caption, at d) unsuitable positions in the article (just pasted at very top). Often duplicates of already present images, often bad quality, often almost unrelated. The hashtag is lacking, but I'm pretty sure this is the impetus. That shit ain't helpful. If an admin wants to save my wrist and do a mass rollback, I wouldn't say no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

...and since they apparently don't notice what's going on and are keeping at it, it's like shoveling back the tide. Holding for now pending application of brakes / heavier machinery. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, I've pblocked them from mainspace. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Thanks. Would you agree this is best rolled back en masse? From my current sample 90% are in the wrong location, about half are unsuitable for the topic, about one third are duplicates, another third of too low quality to use. I think that suggests a complete do-over rather than picking out the few possibly-suitable-after-cleanup ones. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, I'd rather a different administrator make that call, I'm not certain enough in either direction. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would !vote that they be rolled back. User:Ababio70's additions are of similarly low value. -22:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the obvious duds. Some have been vetted, captioned and repositioned by others, using three times the effort this editor spent in horking them into the articles in the first place :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability, Elmidae, ProcrastinatingReader, Berrely, and Fram: (and others here) This is an international contest which was prepared in total good-faith and with the best of intentions to help improve Wikipedia articles with images mainly from the other contests, like Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Africa and Wiki Loves Earth. I understand that some of the participants are doing significant damage adding irrelevant and out of place images to the articles, but please, try to refrain attacking the organizers, including User:T Cells, which is a much respected member of the Wikimedia community except on this Wikipedia, where he was banned for a very (write random insult here) reason years ago, as some of you certainly know and remember - and that's why he can't come himself here and explain what's going on. I also can't understand why ppl are mentioning Nigeria at all in this discussion. Ok, there's a problem with the contest. I'm part of the team that is supporting and organizing the contest. If the decision to ban the hashtag (and, therefore, the contest) from here is not definitive, I'll do my best to help solving the issues that are happening. Please, let's try to handle this with the proverbial wiki cordiality and AGF. I believe the contest has an excellent potential of being a very positive input for Wikipedia, and nobody wants that damage being done to the articles. Can we possibly work out a solution together? Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarwIn: If I may refresh your memory—and without inserting any random insults—Wikicology was banned for, among other things: socking, undeclared autobiographical editing, self-promotion, introducing errors to articles, introducing copyright-violating text and images, and frankly lying with regard his own credentials. An excellent CV for a "much respected" member of the Wikimedia community. Note, I hold him no grudge: but it's an insult to this project to dismiss the evidence as "random insults". ——Serial ^# 17:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I know the process, I've checked it recently, and my own POV is that it was grossly exaggerated (that's why the "random insult" thing), and that some errors were done, but T Cells has improved incredibly since then. But all that is not ontopic here, since it's not related in the least with the current situation. I hope we can work out some kind of solution here. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn, I can understand it was in good faith, and I hold much respect for T Cells, as of course there are many Wikipedia articles with images available but not inserted. I guess some say, "It was a good idea, with semi-poor execution", I think maybe if the rules had been made clearer this could have been heavily prevented, but I'm not one to say. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, GeneralNotability, here is an edit filter notice if needed: User:Berrely/Photos — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn, just to be clear, my comment wasn't anything to do with T Cells or me making any implication of impropriety. I was just curious what the "ng" meant, since it isn't listed on the main contest page and most edits aren't including #wpwpng, only #wpwp. I did some digging, and saw that there's a simultaneous Nigeria contest going on which requires "#wpwp #wpwpng" hence I made the statement linking to that contest page, which is this, in case anyone else is curious what the ng means, or if it might affect what we put in the edit filter etc. I support things which gets more editors into Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've messaged WPWP organizers proposing to add the following to the rules:

• All image additions must include a caption that describes what the image is of.
• Images should be placed in the article in a spot where it is relevant and helpful for the reader to understand the subject
• Users who repeatedly violate these guidelines may be disqualified.

Rules won't prevent poor edits 100% (there are always those who won't read them), but I think this can help increase contribution quality and hopefully serve as one of the solutions coming out of this discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cash prizes for editing? Is that a regular WMF thing or is this new? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DarwIn: For future reference, if you're going to be running these sorts of competitions with hashtags and contribution tracking, it would probably help if someone dropped a note at WP:EFN about it - we can literally add a filter to tag these edits based on the hashtag, so for example there could be a "2020 WPWP competition" tag. That would help both organizers (you can filter a user's contributions based on the tag we apply) and enwiki patrollers (so that people know to watch that specific tag). It also encourages the new editors to actually use the hashtag (a few haven't been great about that) - if they don't use the hashtag, it doesn't show up when you search for the tag, and they don't get credit. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Saying that this campaign was "organized" is an insult to the world organize. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I participate in this. I have to say the instruction is unclear and tracking results likewise is opaque. But we will always run into people who don't understand instructions no matter what kind of events we do (editathon, GAN backlog elimination drive, Wiki Loves Earth, Art & Feminish, Wiki Ed etc.), whether it be writing an article about someone who doesn't meet notability guidelines, doing poor but speedy reviews, poor referencing, close paraphrasing, uploading non-free content as "free" content, not respecting NPOV. My point is, people have been adding crap to Wikipedia with or without any of these events. By Rhododendrites's account, most of the contribution are productive so the campaign so far as a whole should be viewed as net-positive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OhanaUnited, most are positive, but the 1/10 of people who are adding crap photos that are unrelated and random are still a lot. The problem with the edit filter that GeneralNotability set up is that there are genuinely some people who are adding useful photos in short periods of time. Take a look. I propose putting starting by putting the edit filter warning, that should deter users with unconstructive edits (something like this) and if that doesn't work just blocking edits with the hashtag altogether. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I found SuperHamster suggestions very good. I would perhaps even make them a bit more draconian, and include a clear rule that any reverted action would be disqualified, and a large number of reverted actions could imply the whole disqualification of the participant. I hope monitoring the actions and warning when necessary as Berrely suggest is enough to keep it going. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Greeting, I am also involved in this competition. First of all I understand the validity of the concerns and frustration of the AV users. From what I understand, the WPWP campaign rules clearly say images must be constructive and proper captions should be added. The hashtag is to allow easier tracking of the edits under this campaign. From my point of view, can we just block the users who violate the standard EN WIKI guidelines? If someone is not adding proper images, we can warn them first, and block them immediately if they ignore the warnings. Even if they created new account their contributions will be lost (not counted), so it won't be a viable option for them. Also, I feel that in this thread some experienced users are aggressive and not very polite. While I understand the frustration, I request everyone to calm down and see the bright side of this campaign. Although I was a bit disappointed by the 'aggression', but we are human. I request everyone to understand the good faith and to solve this issue without getting enraged or jeopardizing the campaign. Also, isn't 1 out of 10 edit on EN WIKI is damaging already, with or without a campaign going on? I hope I'm not offending anyone, thanks for understanding. --Navinsingh133 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Navinsingh133, you have made valid points, but it is a little bit hard to not get frustrated at this campaign — something like this could have easily been predicted occurring. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The idea behind this competition is a good one - who could be against improving Wikipedia with images? - but the execution is very poor. When there are significant cash prizes at stake (in many parts of the world $500 is several months' earnings for someone not considered poor) there need to be much clearer rules, and they need to be clear before the competition starts. For example most of the prizes are for "unique Wikipedia articles improved with" something, but I can see no obvious definition of "improved with", or indication of who decides that. In such circumstances it is natural than people will go for objective quantity rather than subjective quality. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• While I understand that $500 is a significant amount of money -- it is to me as well -- I can't say that I'm thrilled at the idea of being paid for editing Wikipedia, as it seems antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos. Are there other projects or competitions in which monetary prizes are offered? What does that do to the volunteer nature of editing? Adding images to articles is not -- despite the fact that I often do it -- the most important need around here that it alone should get compensated. How about paying our admins for the b.s. they have to put up with? Or paying editors who have to struggle through the usual mud-throwing of editing contentious subjects? Maybe deletionists should put up prizes for those who delete the most material from the encyclopedia in any month, and inclusionists do the same for those who save articles from being deleted at AfD?
  No, I don't like the idea of cash prizes one little bit, and I'm surprised that the WMF -- so anxious to put its boot into local projects and kick around a little -- allows it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm pretty sure they actually don't allow paying for editing, including in the context of contests. (It's in the Grant guidelines, and I think affiliates typically use the same rule.) But, strictly speaking, the prize is a $500 "gift voucher", per m:WPWP. :/ --Yair rand (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is no real difference between a gift voucher and cash, the result is the same, payment for editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: It's certainly a lot closer to cash than I'm comfortable with, especially given the amount, but I think we need to make the boundary of "payment for editing" a bit clearer. There have been contests/events in the past with prizes (t-shirts, swag), for the purpose of slightly increasing the enthusiasm of the participating volunteers, while still being clearly not "payment" as we'd normally think of it, as in, people definitely weren't participating just to get the prize. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. However, the spectrum from that to, well, $500 gift certificates, is one we probably should have stopped on somewhere along the way. --Yair rand (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Giving out swag is one thing, cash or cash vouchers is another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Grove music online

I was told when I got access to Grove Music online through the Wikipedia Library that it was a requirement of using it that you had to cite references to it like this, for instance - <ref name=Grove>|title=Prophète, Le|author= Huebner, Stephen|access-date=8 July 2016, with the "ref brackets of course. of course. That added a note which said "subscription required". I used it for years, very useful, no problem, grateful for the facilty. Nothing in the footnotes ever came up in red. Suddenly yesterday and today this cite of GroveOnline has been changed somehow and the "subscription required" notice has vanished, instead a note in red has taken its place saying "access-date= requires |url=". Someone appears to have changed it somehow because of this discussion [14] at Template talk:GroveOnline, which is completely over my head, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. Now a bot run by PBS is gong though every article which was cited to GroveOnline "the old way" taking out the access date, also not replacing the "subscription required" notice, leaving an edit summary Remove access-date from GroveOnline because there is no url paramter and possibly some other changes on hundreds of article pages I maintain. My question, other than "why in the world are they doing this" is, I was told that "subscription required" notice must be included when GroveOnline is cited. has that changed? I really hate these kinds of mass changes with fussy little stuff that clog up my watchlist, at times like these I wonder why I bother to edit WP.Smeat75 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the primary reason I stopped using cite templates many years ago. I just add the citation information manually to avoid this problem. I recommend you do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, what happens if you paste the url into ProveIt? Guy (help!) 00:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot is changing them all and I'm not techy enough to intervene. Smeat75 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I could be in over my head and not know it, but from reading through the discussion I think the reasons for the change in template were sound. However, when templates are changed and those changes cause working references to become broken, we need a better response than "user error". The user did not error in making a reference that, at the time, worked. I know that other kinds of templates get changed regularly and yet they don't end up showing up at AN with the same frequency as changes in reference templates end up here. So let's keep improving ref templates but also, and this is where I back-off in hopes that people better qualified than I pick up the baton, let's improve our process around what happens when improvements to reference templates break things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, let's make very, very, very sure that the benefits which will come from changing a reference template are worth the inevitable problems the change will cause. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, 100%. There should be no shame in backing out a change that has unforeseen effects, and there should be way more discussion and testing before changing widely-used templates. Guy (help!) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a BRFA for this operation. It is being run from User:PBS-AWB which should cause a ping. Can someone block that bot until this is sorted? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot, it's an alt account using AWB. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, see WP:MEATBOT. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran WP:AWB manually the actions were not taken by a bot. See the recent discussions on Template talk:GroveOnline as to why this was necessary given the desirable reasons for changing the template. However in simple terms I broke nothing. What I did was to remove an error message. Almost all the citation templates and their wrapper templates will give an error message if someone adds an "access-date" parameter to a citation that does not have a url link. The whole point of access-date[s] is to inform a reader when a web page was accessed as a warning that the current content of the page may have changed sine it was cited. There is no point in adding an "access-date" parameter to a citation that has no url. Recent changes to the template means that all the instances of {{GroveOnline}} which had an "access-date" parameter were now displaying an error message:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La||access-date=3 July 2020}}

produces:

Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). "Traviata, La". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

So for example Revision as of 00:14, 22 September 2018 by user:Smeat75 added the citation:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La|author= Parker, Roger|access-date=21 September 2018}}

The AWB script (Revision as of 17:34, 2 July 2020) changed it to

 {{GroveOnline |last=Parker |first=Roger |title=Traviata, La}}

The reason for also changing the "author" parameter to "first" and "last" is because it is standard to split name (rather than the kludge using "Parker, Roger" as a string in the parameter "author") and allows the long citation be be cited in the standard short format using the {{harv}} templates. In fact across the 660 articles there was a mixture of "first-names second-name" and "second-name, first-names" sometimes in the same citation. The reason for placing the names first and the title after them is it makes finding and or (in a reference list) alphabetically sorting on author easier. This is also the order in which the template displays the parameters (WYSIWYG).

Now to address the subscription required. If there is no link to the online subscription service then no subscription is required—instead, if one is rich, one can purchase the book (published 2001) or use a library. On the template talk page (see above) there is a discussion about whether, if there is a url parameter, to rely on the standard citation templates' red padlock (which is also used at the Grove web site), or continue with a subscription postscript. Opinions on the talk page differ, however if no consensus to remove the postscript, for those templates that have an online link, it can be reinstated.

The primary reason for making the change is that there are currently 3 different and overlapping templates {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}} and {{Cite NewGrove2001}}. The intention is to merge all three (starting with {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}}). The first step of which was to alter the oldest one, {{GroveOnline}}, so that the script was converted from calling {{cite encyclopedia}} directly into using the Lua template wrapper. This move most of the script complications down into the standard Lua code. For example the GroveOnline script prior to the change had 41 line now it has 11 line and far more functionality. -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note from the Wikipedia Library team that we don't require any particular citation formatting if you get access to content through the library. We previously had some text on the signup pages which unfortunately implied a requirement but was just our best attempt to provide an example of a full citation per the then best practices. See a previous discussion on this in the VPP archive. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further to what PBS says above, yes you could go out and buy Grove Music (published in 2001) or use a library but Grove Music online is part of Oxford Music Online and when you have access to that you also have access to " to search The Oxford Dictionary of Music and The Oxford Companion to Music". Further the online version is constantly updated, it's not the same as the book published in 2001, just last month for instance "We are pleased to have added 3 new articles, 12 new images, 67 revised entries, and refreshed data for 4 entries for this site update." So how am I supposed to cite it now? It worked perfectly well before these (completely unnecessary imo) changes messed it up.Smeat75 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, before I went through the pages that did not have URL, I went through those that that did adding a full citation including the date and checking the link to the Grove online site. Those examples can be found in:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a url parameter‎

I also added some to six other templates using "doi" and "id" see:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a doi parameter‎
• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with an id parameter‎

So you can use those articles to see how to link the article to the website and how to date them correctly. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just do it manually from now on as Viriditas suggests and not use cite templates. I thought you were supposed to as a condition of having access through the Wikipedia library. I don't have an effing clue what a "template with a doi parameter" or an "id paraamter" is and could not care less, I edit articles on MUSIC because readers come hear to learn about MUSIC not all that technical bollocks.Smeat75 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: as I indicated upthread I read the original discussion and understood the reasoning for this change. The change made sense. But you've either not seen, don't understand, or disagree with the point I was also trying to make. So let me try making it again . Your technical change was good. But a reference that was added, even one added incorrectly, that didn't produce an error when added and now produces an error is a broken reference and it was broken by the change in template. The response that seems to be common in these situations is to blame the editors who didn't do the technical side correctly in the first place. I think that attitude means that reference template changes end up at AN far too often. And for that I firmly believe something can be done but stop short of saying what the right solution out of respect for people who understand this better than I do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your argument, for example changing "cite ..." templates to match {{citation}} template in regards to the way that the ref parameter works has left a long tail of problems. However (MRDA) in this case I assessed the problem of the issues that would appear and knew that I could fix them in a few days (2,3?). I fixed the instances I knew would be broken after the change (unnamed parameters) before the change, but others which produced red warning I did not fix prior to the change, because potentially other editors not seeing the problem (red warnings) would probably have revert some of the changes. Once the change was made then making a revert of a revert would be needed. This would have made work for people that was fruitless and would I think have caused more resentment. Not running the AWB script would also have caused resentment with editors who had not expressed an opinion in the change forced to clean up someone else's red mess. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang on — so, to me as a casual passer-by, the above and linked discussion seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Wouldn't the fix for the underlying issue be to allow access-date without URL for online reference works like this that could reasonably be cited without a URL (Grove Online, OED, etc.)? The access-date information seems logically applicable to citations such as these, since the sources' text can change and then no longer support the content sourced to it. It sounds like the reason for excluding it is lack of support in a dependency of the template, which doesn't sound like something intractable to remedy (imagining logic to the effect of, "if the title matches 'Grove', then don't treat 'access-date without url' as an error"). Just my 2¢… —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

|access-date= requires the use of |url= in CS1/2 templates, which is a long-standing requirement for template input (see category). {{Cite Grove}} is a derivative of {{cite encyclopedia}} and thus has the same requirement. However, before this change, the template provided an automatic link to the DOI in the URL field rather than in the expected field, which is |doi=. This allowed for the use of template with the access date provided to take no URL. Now that the template does not have this automatic fallback, the template is falling back to the default behavior in the core template, which is to warn the user that the access date has no URL. And so we're here today where PBS has since stated that he was aware of what would happen and was going to fix it after the change in Cite Grove, with some reasonable rationale. It is not the case that you cannot have an accessdate, it is the case that if you have one, you must have selected some particular URL to go with that accessdate. (Permanent identifiers do not need access dates because they are anticipated/expected to be usable for a reasonably long time to find the work so-identified.) --Izno (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I still tend to think it would be better to (at least temporarily) change the tradition at CS1 to carve out an exception to that requirement for references to this sort of work, until the offending references are re-checked against the source and updated with URL and accessdate, since just removing the accessdate would confusingly imply it's a static source à la print… I guess it's perhaps overly optimistic to think that process would get taken care of quickly, though, since it would essentially just be yet another maintenance backlog. Oh well, I guess there are substantially more important fish to fry. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

{{cite Grove}} has 800 transclusions. Module:Citation/CS1 has 4 million and change. Which do you think is more likely to be changed when the change in one is a routine update and one is a rather significant departure from previous behavior? :) --Izno (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mm, fair enough. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As the author of the alternate Grove templates that (eventually) prompted the merger discussion referenced above, my plan was to make a parallel implementation that was clean, consistent, and without all the quirky behaviour of the original Grove templates (they were written by different people, at different times, using different implementation strategies, for different driving purposes, and implement various non-standard behaviour and logic that only work in very limited situations); and then to manually and article-by-article and cite-by-cite go through and replace the old templates with the new. Beyond the technical aspects, this makes sure any changes in output after the changeover have been assessed, individually (because usages are individual), by a human being; and that the editors that care about a particular article have a real chance to object, point out problems, and, possibly, to be persuaded that the changes are acceptable. Once the old templates have zero mainspace transclusions they can be MfD'ed and possibly AWB-replaced.

Changing the implementation of the existing templates in breaking ways and then AWB-modifying usages to what you think they should be is not taking into account the fact that people who are here to write articles care about their citations, and has put considerable effort into making them just the way they want them. It is prioritising factors such as the edit history artefacts in Template:-space, automatability of mass changes (which, yes, requires BRFA, regardless of whether you implement your (meat)bot using pywikibot or AWB, for precisely this reason; check the terms of use for AWB), and clean metadata. It is making this prioritisation over all the editors that have worked hard on actual articles and their citations, and who spend a lot of time and effort maintaining those articles. It is making that prioritisation at the expense of the actual output in the affected articles. And it is doing so based on one editor's opinion, made outside of the local article (where all such issues should be discussed, unless a community-wide consensus overrules it), and in de facto contravention of CITEVAR.

Editors proclaiming they'll stop using citation templates sounds, at first blush, like childishness or sour grapes. It's not. It is fast becoming the only reasonable approach to a culture that permits running roughshod over local consensus just because the change in question was one that was automatable and had some desirable technical effects. That permits people running a bot to impose their idea of the one true Wikipedia citation style, despite broad consensus that Wikipedia has no one true citation style. Where adding {{bots|deny=botname}} to an article to prevent changes the local editors see as undesirable is mass bot reverted because, they argue, {{bots|deny=botname}} has zero valid use cases (just try to grasp the level of Kafkaesquity of this from a content editor's point of view: this behaviour by a human on one article would be sanctioned as edit warring, but when performed by a bot over hundreds or thousands of articles it's somehow ok?). Using citation templates creates the technical possibility to make mass changes, but being possible is not the same as being desirable or permitted. And, in fact, in many of these cases, is explicitly forbidden and explicitly requires approval to make sure there is consensus for the changes before they are made. Just because the technical effects are good and desirable in themselves does not ipso facto mean they are more important then their effects on articles and the editors there.

These issues keep appearing at AN/ANI because AN/ANI is failing to actually enforce existing policy. Such mass changes are disruptive if not handled properly, and a lot of these changes violate CITEVAR, completely irrespective of whether the changes also happen to have some desirable technical effects. Anyone that wants to mass change citations on the project should head on over to the Village Pump and make the case for why their One True Citation Style should be mandatory across English Wikipedia, and anyone ending here at AN/ANI after mass changes without a community-wide RfC to back up their specific changes over local consensus should be treated like any other user engaging in mass disruptive behaviour. There is absolutely no reason why these issues should have to end up at ArbCom (we've had citation styles once, and infoboxes twice) if ANI would actually enforce existing policy (WP:BOTPOL, WP:AWBRULES, WP:CITEVAR). Give editors working in content space and who actually care about their citations a break, will you? Editors who care is a good thing: we want to attract more of them, not drive away the dwindling number we have left.

PS. Just to give some context of where I'm coming from… I'm a techie that will routinely spend hours automating a task that can be done manually in mere minutes more. I'm passionate about semantic and correct metadata, and have as a personal bugaboo that inaccurate or incorrect metadata is actively harmful. I'll happily approach any problem on-wiki through technical means if technical means are feasible. I am the kind of person that gets disproportionately grateful for gnomes doing stuff like this on "my" articles. I am in no way shape or form opposed to technical solutions—in fact, I advocate for them—when technical solutions are actually feasible. In the cases that have ended up here lately, they haven't been, but have been rammed through regardless.

PPS. Note that while the above certainly contains criticism of the approach PBS took here—and, in fairness I have to admit I am a little personally miffed they decided to overwrite the new templates I'd made—it's not really criticism of PBS. They were clearly acting in good faith and doing their best to be transparent, open, and inclusive, and to make these changes responsibly. What I'm saying is that in this case they walked into a trap, of sorts, created by our inability to actually enforce existing policy: I am here criticising a systemic issue, not a single editor doing their best within that system. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Eloquent post User:Xover, thank you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

3nk1namshub

• 3nk1namshub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In attempting to understand 3nk1namshub's frankly bizarre behaviour I found this [15], which may perhaps identify a root cause. Regardless, having reviewed their edits I am pretty confident that Wikipedia is going to be bad for their mental health (and the evidence suggests that they are also going to be bad for ours) so I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If anyone feels that they can fix this through kindness and patience then they are more than welcome to unblock. Guy (help!) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I am fine with having them address problems through the venue of an unblock appeal, if they're serious about continuing to contribute. This level of vitriol falls well bellow expectations and require significant correction. El_C 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse, recommend standard offer. Six months working on other wikis will allow them to demonstrate that they can beahve collegially.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 2020-07-03T11:20:55 (UTC)
• Standard offer, 6 months constructivity other projects. (Last I looked, they had an active unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Switch to unblock when GW's mentorship is in place/ FWIW, I identify as autistic, and that should not be a factor. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Or Jasper's. Or both. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have a great deal of sympathy with this user's cause. The Signpost page which they are talking about is, frankly, disgusting, and I can clearly understand why a new user would feel that it absolutely should be deleted post-haste, not being familiar with the consensus process. However, we do, of course, have a consensus process, and neither AN nor the user's talk page or user page is the place to question an existing consensus. I think it ought to be questioned why the discussion at WT:SIGNPOST was closed so soon, even with the incivility issues, but I do not object to the block itself; it is clear that they have been extremely uncivil, and whilst I might quibble about the consistency with which a block might or might not be applied for those same actions, I think the decision that has been taken here is a good one. That being said, I think an unblock should be considered after a short period of time (shorter than the standard offer, certainly); I don't think the editor is here with an intent to be disruptive. Perhaps I'm taking WP:AGF to an extreme here, but I think they are genuinely trying to make the encyclopedia better, albeit the case that they clearly need to consider the way that they do that, and the way that they interact with other people. If they were to continue being uncivil after an unblock, then an indef without standard appeals would be warranted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  And I would agree with Naypta were it not for the s aforementioned edit summary. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub needs to calm down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: That's understandable, for sure. I think it's worthy of note that the user did later try to post an apology for that after their 24 hour block for it expired, but reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that is sufficient to make up for it. I wonder what RandomCanadian thinks is appropriate, seeing as they were the target of the abuse in this case - please don't feel you have to reply to this ping if you'd rather not, though, as I appreciate this is a difficult subject. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing difficult at all. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub is not ready for a collaborative environment. Perhaps six months from now, they will be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I do, however, wonder if they deserve this kind of gravedancing? I suggest not; it's childish, unhelpful mockery. In my book, even if it were true, anyone who thinks it necessary to say that on the user's own page is demonstrating extremely poor judgement. ——Serial ^# 12:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have removed the offending comment. And will warn the user about this sort of thing being totally unacceptable. El_C 12:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, El_C, no need to make this worse than it has to be. ——Serial ^# 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, absolutely. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. El_C 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, I'd have suggested blocking the one who posted that comment since it's clearly not their first disruptive salvo against the indeffed user, and considering that they just "lol"ed off the first warning, there's no indication that they plan to stop.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, and that’s why you’re not an admin, lol. And where’s the indication I plan to continue? I’ll answer for you; nowhere. End of discussion. Good day. – ².O.^Boxing 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I concur with WaltCip. And Squared.Circle.Boxing would do well to consider that ANIs often conclude with sanctions against multiple parties, not just the one named in the heading. "Mooning the jury" here with personalized hostility as you did is a strong indication that WaltCip's assessment is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not ;) Old news, nothing to see here, move along. – ².O.^Boxing 02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I think this could have been discussed prior to a block, but that notwithstanding I'm inclined to agree with Naypta. Either we can try a 2-week time-limited block and see their behaviour on return; alternatively, stick with the indef but use 2 weeks or a month as the functional base time for unblock discussions instead of 6 months. I'm tempted to go for the latter as the unblocking admin will probably need to have a fairly lengthy discussion to work out whether the editor has had a chance to consider, as well as setting up any editing restrictions appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, preference for the latter. El_C 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Post mentorship offers, so as long as a 3rd party unblocker (ie not a mentor) was happy with any unblock conditions, a mentor was in place and accepted by the user, and sufficient understanding demonstrated, I'd be happy to back an unblock at any point. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the user in question has made a grand total of 10 mainspace edits. The disruption clearly outweighs any contributions made to the encyclopedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Why is an edit summary from a week ago being brought up as reasoning for a block now? I was on the receiving end of some of 3nk1namshub's less-than-charitable comments surrounding the Autism issue, and I've had their user page watchlisted since, which is why I'm showing up here now. They were briefly blocked for their behavior in that dispute, and shortly after they realized that they had reacted inappropriately due to the very personal nature of the issue, and apologized. It seems like double jeopardy for their behavior then to be used against them now. Their behavior in this latest dispute was disruptive, yes, but they were also trying to raise what I believe to be legitimate concerns. An indef block seems excessive, and their recent unblock request suggests to me they've cooled down. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, only that it's an indication (backed by subsequent statements) that the user identifies as autistic, which explains the obsessive behaviour but also speaks to the likelihood of that changing. That's why El C and I were distinctly unimpressed with Squared.Circle.Boxing's bullshit noted above.

  This is not about attacks that have long since blown over, but about the very odd behaviour around the old Signpost article.

  This is also not a cool down block. It's a discussion about whether someone has the reserves of kindness and patience to help 3nk1namshub to have a Wikipedia experience that will not cause them serious distress, which is what's happened to date. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  We are not medical professionals caring for 3nk1namshub, and so I do not believe it is appropriate for us to try to decide what is best for them based on their autism nor predict their behavior based on it. It should not factor in to any sanctions; they can make the decision for themself around whether they wish and are able to contribute here within our policies and guidelines. If what you are looking for is some sort of mentor for them, I am happy to volunteer if they are open to that solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, if you're willing to volunteer for that, I would support taking any action you see fit. El_C 18:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think the best thing to do right now is wait to hear from 3nk1namshub. If they're willing to move forward with a mentor, that might be the best option. I see Jasper Deng has also offered to mentor, so I'd leave it up to 3nk1namshub to decide who they'd prefer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unpopular opinion, but overturn per @GorillaWarfare:. I am willing to take on the role of mentoring them as they appear to at least be willing to communicate about these issues. The user has acknowledged multiple times that their behavior was inappropriate and I've suggested them multiple times to edit content, though I don't have much in the way of specific articles they could work on. I think a conditional unblock, including a topic ban from the Signpost piece (bad as it was) and the condition of mentorship, would be a much better alternative to the standard offer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, you may wish to review my unblock decline. El_C 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Honestly, I don't think it addresses what GorillaWarfare said. What's important is that they know they were (not "are") disruptive and are willing to work to change their behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, based on their past behaviour, I still think they need more time away from the project, for a while, at least. El_C 17:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I even suggested that too, but I would rather not have it done by a block, especially as they have disengaged from the topic in question at my suggestion (there is little to prevent). But now that we're here, I think it's better to offer a conditional unblock along these lines (and GW's) rather than merely decline their request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, in time. I still think we need more time. El_C 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: How about we be specific, and not vague. Why make it involuntary when they themselves have offered to take a wikibreak? Look, I agree they need time away from the project. But they already offered to do so voluntarily, and they already have made an earnest promise to change their behavior. I don't really see what purpose this block serves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Now the temptation to act inappropriately (even if from admirable reasons) is removed. El_C 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I don't think it was there anymore in the first place, to be quite honest. Read the conversation I had with them before the block in full detail. I highly suggest the WP:ROPE approach and mentorship in lieu of the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, they are welcome to make another unblock appeal. Alternatively, if there is consensus to unblock in this report, I will likewise not stand in its way. El_C 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Also, I strongly endorse what GW said: never tell anyone that their actions are due to a disorder, even when they say they have said disorder. It's not our place to make such assumptions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jasper Deng, I didn't, they did. Guy (help!) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• As the previous blocking administrator, who believed that there was a good chance that 3nk1namshub would reconsider, I was vindicated by their response. Realistically, I also believed that this might recur, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I continue to hold that belief. While we have a policy of not issuing cool-down blocks, in the case of this particular user, and in view of their self-description, that might be the best and kindest approach. I remain opposed to an indef, on the basis of my interactions with the user. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • • I still think the user has been too disruptive to immediately unblock. El_C 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting an immediate unblock. I'm opposed to an indefinite NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Acroterion, understood. El_C 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think I've ever seen a new user get involved in so many nasty disputes so quickly. If that really is the main reason they're here then the NOTHERE block is appropriate. Not opposed to an unblock but I'd like to see a commitment to doing something else, e.g. writing content or doing some useful maintenance task. Hut 8.5 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5: I think a few explicit content suggestions would indeed be good, and a good way to offer them mentorship. I would rather they stay out of maintenance tasks, if by that you mean anti-vandalism or spam work, if only because I think it would be best if they take their interactions with others slowly and carefully.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think a large part of the problem is that most of their interactions with others have been on emotionally charged topics they obviously care deeply about, e.g. trans issues and autism. I suspect they might do better if they avoided those areas. I don't necessarily mean dealing with vandalism or spam, any sort of gnoming work might work. Hut 8.5 17:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• That Signpost article is disgusting. It should have the "keep but blank" consensus overturned and be rev-delled. Everyone who was involved in the publication of it should be ashamed. Everyone who defended it (and we know who they are) should likewise be ashamed. If I were on the target side of that horrible thing, I would be filled with rage and anguish, too. So I get it. They're disruptive, but honestly no one seems to give a shit and maybe this disruption is necessary to bring eyeballs back to it. I think with Jasper and GW's mentorship, this user may become productive, so I sit with them.--Jorm (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock per Jasper and GW. I think that a fair amount of the editor's behavior can be explained as a response to a whole lot of biting, some unintentional and some seemingly intentional. They have expressed contrition, and appear to have already stood down at the time that the block was put in place. This feels a bit like a trans-rights analogue to WP:Don't overlook legal threats. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock. Wholeheartedly agree with GW, Jasper, Jorm, et al. The Signpost piece is abhorrent. It's dehumanizing, and the fact that it was allowed to be kept and not deleted disgusts me. I'm absolutely going to call people out here: SMcCandlish, Barbara (WVS), you should be ashamed, as should everyone else who thinks this shit is funny. For as long as I've been here, Wikipedia has been a heteronormative, cisnormative place, and if we want to build the best free knowledge resource that the world has ever seen, we have to be welcoming to (almost) everybody. As for the block, I agree that I'd like to see 3nk1namshub unblocked at some point, so long as they are involved in some content-related work. They're clearly passionate about a number of subjects, so they could definitely be a net positive, but mentorship would probably be a good idea. – Frood (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Frood, it's incredibly disruptive to shame-ping two users (one of whom hasn't edited this year) over an old issue. Please don't do that again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Especially when it's completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the blocked user nor their autism-related editing and battlegrounding focus. [And the accusation is incorrect anyway. We've been over this 1,000 times already: just because something involves pronouns doesn't make it trans-related; the piece was about egotistical, religious/mystical, and commercial aggrandizement. To the extent the point it makes could be applied to trans/NB matters at all, it is actually valid: While WP should use he/she/they gender-referential writing practices to suit subjects' source-attested gender identity, WP absolutely should not implement pseudo-pronouns like zir or shim just because a subject does so. It's fine to mention in the article that the subject uses one, as we do at Genesis P-Orridge, but otherwise write around the matter with a neutral singular-they, by repeating the surname, etc.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block but unblock with mentoring - The editor had been disruptive and the block prevented further disruption, so good block. If there are editors willing to mentor, then yes, let's give that a shot, as always. BTW, may I remind everyone that, while I of all editors certainly understand having strong feelings about the deletion of a page :-), there were many editors who !voted to keep that page, some of whom are, of course, themselves transgender or non-binary, and so suggesting that everyone who defended that page is transphobic is probably off the mark. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think it important to remember the subject of this thread is whether 3nk1namshub can edit constructively. There have been issues part from objecting to that Signpost piece. Others have objected without becoming disruptive.3nk1namshub's resounding question, What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? needs to be asked and answered elsewhere, perhaps WP:VPP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, if at all: we are not actually bad at getting rid of transphobes. Guy (help!) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Commenting because I like to provide more sympathetic viewpoints for new editors at times, though I'm not sure how well I can do that here. In other cases of new editor 'mistakes', where new editors have apologised for their actions and promise to improve, the community often insists on a ban or a block regardless, and that's in first time cases. In this case, unusually, it seems like arguments are already tending towards more sympathetic, yet the conduct here is more egregious than typical cases, and this isn't the first major issue, it's not even the second - they've promised to stop before. They told an editor to fuck off for closing an edit request, and proceeded to call them a scumbag. That was dealt with and given a 24h block. About 2 weeks later, the trend continues. Even some of their 'calmer' discussions, eg the deadnaming one, started off well and quickly descended beyond appropriate conduct. Multiple editors, across multiple noticeboards and talk pages, have expressed concerns, with Levivich labelling them a RGW SPA. Earlier today they changed their user page (see Special:Permalink/965765536), note the edit summary. Combined with their other comments, I've seen this many times especially in younger editors on various forums, ime it's conflated emotions and there has not been the proper time to reflect, and no benefit ever came, to any party, from undoing the block soon after.

That said, although much of what they wrote was a sore to read, the discussion at ANI § Why is this ok? was thought-provoking, and I sympathise with their initial comments. The final remark sticks out at me, Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that. If this were anyone else, I wouldn't even have to comment because everyone else would be moving to keep the block and this discussion would already be closed. Nevertheless, I believe that creating an echo-chamber isn't beneficial to the encyclopaedia. After this mess of conduct, and the recency of it, I firmly oppose an unblock currently. But, after things have calmed down (i.e. in a month's time), should they still wish to contribute to improving Wikipedia, especially in the areas we've gotten wrong across articles, I strongly believe it would be beneficial for the encyclopaedia to grant the request. I also agree mentorship would be a great help, and I do truly hope that they make said unblock request in a month's time; I'd love to have them contributing to fixing the very real problems they describe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support unblock, essentially per User:GorillaWarfare's comments. This is someone who didn't handle their anger well, but the indef block is an overreaction (especially as it was partly for something they'd already been blocked for previously). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, for the avoidance of doubt, that played no part in the block decision, other than as a pattern of weirdness. I think Levivich has the right of it here. Guy (help!) 22:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: OK, thanks for the explanation. I still strongly oppose the indef block and support the unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, unblock with friendly support is 100% the result I hoped for here. Guy (help!) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose indef I'm ambivalent on the current block, but either way I believe the indef is inappropriate and do not agree the NOTHERE rationale is correct. While the linked diff is obviously disruptive, it was in the context of an edit request so I don't see how that substantiates a NOTHERE block. Their approach may be abrasive and inappropriate, but that does not mean they are not trying to help build an encyclopedia. As for overturning the block, I lean towards unblocking per GorillaWarfare, but given the WP:NPA issue understand why a definite block of a month or two may be reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I have struckthrough my decline for their unblock appeal, per my discussion with GorillaWarfare above. The request should be considered re-opened. El_C 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Block was warranted. Indef was too much. Unblock with mentorship was a good move. I'm late to this, but as an admin who was responding yesterday and trying to de-escalate the situation, I wanted to chime in. I think Levivich matches my view best. 3nk1namshub was being disruptive and resumed doing so less than 2 hours after the ANI was closed for the second time. For that, a block was warranted. The user's (justified) anger was overriding others' attempts to help. As someone the Signpost's bullshit directly relates to, I understand the anger over it.  Despite "no cool down blocks", I'd say one was warranted here (IAR) given the info 3nk1namshub provided. All said, the unblock seems reasonable and I hope mentorship is successful. 3nk1namshub, FWIW, i'm happy to offer my view and input as a non-binary admin should you wish to hear it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  EvergreenFir, What you just said :-) Guy (help!) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Given the consent of Guy and El C and the general thrust of this thread I didn't see a reason to leave this user blocked any longer and so I have unblocked them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with that, Barkeep49. El_C 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading this back, certain sections seem confrontational. I apologize for them, as that is certainly not my intent. I'm really not good with words. I hope you'll understand, thank you. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone here for speaking their mind. Whether or not they voted to endorse or oppose, I think everyone here made some very good points that I will certainly be taking into account in the future. I would be more than happy to have GorillaWarfare as a mentor. I haven't interacted much with her, but it's clear she's incredibly kind, and has the patience of a saint, in addition to being understanding of queer issues. However, I haven't yet decided on whether I will be returning to Wikipedia. If I were to make that decision now, it would be a very clear no. However, as I intend to take a break from Wikipedia anyway, I don't want to make any hasty decisions.

Before I go, I'd just like to say that I feel this thread has proven my point exactly. While a vast majority of the points brought up are perfectly fine, some of them have speculated on completely unrelated issues about me. My mental health should not come into play here. My autism should not come into play here. One user claimed I was "looking for an argument" when politely asking an editor about the hategroup dogwhistle on their user page. If polite questions about TERFy dogwhistles are looking for an argument, why are TERFy dogwhistles not?

Additionally, throughout this whole thing I've had several editors acknowledge the issues of transphobia on Wikipedia, and claim that my frustration is justified. Several people have asked me to stay to try and make Wikipedia more welcoming for queer people, but I'm really not sure that's do-able. You cannot ask trans people to help fix your mistakes, refuse to listen to us, and then give a topic ban for trans issues when we get angry. It really seems like what's wanted is trans people who accept the status quo, not trans people who want to fix your mistakes since you will not. And before anyone says anything, yes, I am aware I am not topic banned; it's been mentioned at least once though.

Wikipedia isn't just passively hostile to trans people though, it's actively hostile. Even ignoring that article of The Signpost, user pages are seemingly free to contain whatever, including TERF dogwhistles, and "beliefs" about the English language that are demonstrably false and intended to dehumanize trans people. I will be more than happy to provide examples if asked. I've also seen someone in this thread tokenize trans people's opinions on the article from The Signpost (although this may just be a misinterpretation on my end). @JzG: I apologize for pinging you directly, but I would be more than willing to show you why Wikipedia isn't actually that good at ridding itself of transphobes.

I'm aware this is not helping the case about me being an RGW SPA, but I think it's important to at least try and make you all aware of the issues here. I don't like to assume identities, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that most of the people in this thread are cis (I'm aware not all of the people are, however), and I'll hope you'll be at least a bit open-minded to what I'm saying here. Being trans brings a completely different life experience, and cis people are (in my experience) unable to accurately put themselves in our places without a trans person trying to explain detail what things are like. There's a reason that the vast majority of trans people off Wikipedia do not like this place or its editors, and whether or not I return, I'd appreciate it if everyone here attempted to ask themselves why that is (hint: the answer is not because we're sensitive snowflakes who want to censor history).

I'm going to monitor this thread, but I won't be responding unless someone asks for clarification on something. If you would like to chat about the things I've said here, my Freenode nick is enki_nam_shub (I've talked to several editors on Freenode under a different nick in the past. However, due to some opsec issues, this is a long overdue nick change, and I will be happy to prove that both nicks are me if you have any concerns).

Again, thank you all, especially the people who supported the block. You've all given me a great deal to think about and made fantastic points. Whether or not I return, this has been a learning experience. It certainly could've happened in a much better way, but in a strange way, I think this has been good for me. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, 3nk1namshub. Good luck with your future edits. El_C 03:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, one last thing: I would really, really appreciate it if editors did not use transphobic slurs in this thread, thanks. Throwing transphobic slurs around does not help the case that you're actually not a transphobe. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: Note that I have also offered mentorship, which can be in addition to GW. I do recommend you accept GW's offer though, she's one of the best you can ask for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you Guy (help!) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: Thank you for coming here and sharing your thoughts, which I think we would all do well to read and reflect upon. I understand entirely that you do not wish to immediately return to editing, and are unsure if you ever will. If you do decide to, and I hope you will, please feel free to either leave a message on my talk page or contact me via email (Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare or gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com) and I will happily work with you to try to ensure your next foray into editing is a pleasant one. It seems we may have some overlap in our editing interests, so perhaps we could collaborate on an article sometime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wanted to add a comment based on Nosebagbear's modified indef above. For a while I've advocated for what I've called "indef-lite". The basic idea is the indef has no minimum time until appeal and the appeal doesn't need to be anything too big. In short the blocks are to protect wikipedia, not punish. Rather than blocking for say 1-week we block for a relatively minor thing, we simply block until the editor acknowledges the issue and agrees not to do it again. At that point the block is lifted. It doesn't let them just "wait it out" and it does force them to at least articulate what others were upset about. However, if they come to that realization in just 12 hours, well that would mean the rest of the block, be it 1 week, 1 month or the typical 6 months until an indef appeal is punitive. Having read the original ANI and this follow up regarding the editor in question I think the decision to lift the indef with conditions was the right one. What the community actually implemented was similar to my "indef-lite" idea. I'm mentioning this here to put the idea in people's minds in a case where I'm totally uninvolved. Springee (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think there should be a minimum time before 'acknowledgement' at least. One doesn't often come to a realisation and change within 12 hours of being blocked, even if one thinks they 'get it' imo. It just takes time. But my thought is perhaps counter-productive, kinda like what was said at the Kiev-Kyiv RM yesterday: if you set a minimum duration of block/moratorium/whatever, the date that duration ends will probably be the date of appeal. Slightly different for blocks because if it's a reasonable duration (a few weeks, a month) it's likely it won't be appealed unless the person really wants to come back, and hopefully (probably?) it's for good reasons this time. And the standard offer of 6 months, while I'm aware it's only a guide, is quite long imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: that's something we do already: with indefinite blocks, which seems to work fine. ——Serial ^# 11:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In the past I've received pushback when I've suggested similar blocks which is why I've mentioned it here. I think a different lable vs "indef" might be helpful when looking at block logs. I think most people see "indef" and assume the crime was a big one. As I proposed this I would suggest it's not meant to be a "last resort" sort of block and I wouldn't want it read that way. Anyway, even if it's not formalized it's good to know it was happening more in practice than I was aware. Springee (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: - possibly, we obviously have "soft blocks" which are usually for non-bad incidents, but also include things like legal threats, but are purely contingent on the blockee's actions. I wouldn't be against a more standard term on block logs for where it's specifically felt that waiting for the SO is genuinely felt as not needed (rather than just an occasional option). Further discussion probably warrants at least its own sub-section, if not a distinct discussion on ideas or with interested individuals. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Change in blocking policy

As a result of this 3RN report wherein I block an editor for 48 hours for a first time 3RR violation, it has come to my attention that Ritchie333 changed the blocking policy on June 19 to state that partial blocks should be the default for edit warring blocks. Given that the changes were made with very little discussion, I'm noting the recent policy change here as the change effects most active admins.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not quite how I read that, and I would note that written policy follows practice, not the other way around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good call, Ritchie. I've adopted that modality pretty much since the implementation of partial blocks. It is incredibly useful in curtailing edit warring, with little downside. I'm still surprised when I see AN3 reports closed with a sitewide block. What is that now — a punishment? El_C 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• It seems like the most relevant change here is Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site.. I disagree that that instructs "partial blocks should be the default for edit warring blocks", it seems to just say that some admins use them for edit warring. It does seem reasonable to at least consider a partial block when an edit warring issue arises, though, I'll keep that in mind. Still getting used to the whole idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, having now read the discussion at ANEW I see why you have said this. I disagree with Ritchie333 that the policy requires us to default to partial blocks—that policy change would require a broader discussion and certainly a notification to admins. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a significant support for allowing the feature. In my specific case, the de facto example I wanted partial blocks was Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), where we could have blocked him for 12 hours on a page he was edit warring on and got a discussion, instead of protecting the page (antagonising other editors) or sitewide blocking him (which made the heavens tremble). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Option four (something else). The RfC was to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled, and broadly how they should be applied. Edit warring was certainly discussed as a good candidate for partial blocks, but there was no formal discussion around changing the blocking policy to require partial blocks be the default for edit warring. Like I said, such a policy change would not only need a formal discussion but would also need to be communicated broadly to admins, so it doesn't catch them by surprise like it (sort of) did with Ponyo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird, this is the second time today someone's changed their comment while I replied but I didn't get an edit conflict. This time I edit conflicted with El C, but your change didn't show up in the EC diff. Anyway, to reply to your changed comment, I have no objection to allowing partial blocks to be used for edit wars, I think that's more than appropriate. My objection is with requiring admins to default to it, for the reasons I've outlined above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the same camp, it is fine to have another tool but we don't need to tell admin which way to block. As I stated early, policy is a reflection of practice, and we need to see how it hammers out now that it is in place, rather than try to dictate to admin why type of block to use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion worth having. Sure, Ponyo was well within their rights to sitewide block, but the user has only edited one article. That's what partial block are for par excellence. El_C 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not the first time I've questioned why somebody has used sitewide vs. partial blocking; the responses previously have been either "good point, I'll remember that next time" or "yes, this had to be sitewide because of [x]". To be clear, I'm not disputing the block (I think there's a solid case for some sort of block there) or wanting it appealed - I just want to make sure admins are considering the wider range options available to them. If they're getting defensive or think I'm having a go at them, or think their block is bad, they've missed the point I was trying to make. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to the block at the 3RN report I linked you wrote "According to the policy, Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site. Why was it required?" (all bolding and emphasis yours). You were quoting policy that you, yourself, changed just days before. It's important that admins are at least aware of the changes you made if you will be challenging them on such.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is on Ponyo for missing the point. Your conversation at ANEW did suggest that admins must default to partial blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed this to "Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Partial blocks are an option, but we should apply WP:CLUE. Guy (help!) 23:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've raised this issue before at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/May#Partial blocks, but it didn't attract much attention. I think we should work towards greater guidance, either to find a default first-offense block scope and duration that should be used absent motivation for the contrary, or to come up with a set of guidelines of when admins should use full blocks vs. partial blocks. Otherwise, we risk the same behavior being subject to either a 24-hour siteblock, 72-block pblock, or whatever the blocking admin's default is. Admin discretion is fine, but basing disciplinary actions solely on the personal preferences of the blocking admin is too arbitrary. Again, I believe that both full and partial blocks continue to have a place in combating edit warring, but there should be a default setting that all admins use for 50%+ of cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  My gut sense is that sitewide blocks may still be an appropriate course of action for brand-new SPA accounts engaged in edit warring past 3RR (as was the case here), given the high likelihood that the editor may continue their disruption on related or non-mainspace pages. For cases where the editor is less clearly engaging in bad faith or has a history of positive contributions, I do think that partial blocks will generally be the best course of action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, I think that would fall more under a WP:DE than an WP:EW block. El_C 22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, It's at the intersection, no? The offense that clearly licensed the block was a violation of 3RR, but the manner in which 3RR was violated suggests further problems that do fall under the more general category of disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am of the opinion that, in that scenario, DE should take precedence over EW. With DE we want an enhanced restriction (user talk page only, if that), whereas with EW, there's also the article talk page being available, or if not that, different articles, or if not those, even different namespaces. El_C 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, as above: let's not be prescriptive, we should apply Clue. Guy (help!) 23:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  There isn't uniform agreement on the usefulness of partial blocks; at least one admin thinks other tools are more effective and won't use them. (Some research and evaluation of their efficacy might help establish community norms more rapidly.) isaacl (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Since I’ve been mentioned indirectly, I’ll point out that my prediction that partial blocks create controversy when used and vastly expand the power of admins beyond anything any policy before them envisioned has largely been proven true. Basically Ponyo was right here. The full block was justified and a partial block wouldn’t have accomplished anything. I’m probably the loudest voice on this project pointing out that they cause just as much disruption as they prevent, if not more, but there’s a significant minority of us across the projects, including multiple stewards and other highly respected users who refuse to use them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Basically Ponyo was right here. The full block was justified and a partial block wouldn’t have accomplished anything." And that's why I get annoyed at other admins. You didn't say why. I assume you're saying it for a good reason, but without explaining your working out, all I can do is shake my head and say "you are wrong". :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 it is an SPA that was edit warring on the only page that it has edited. That’s indicative that it is extremely likely to cause issues elsewhere on the project. Some admins would have NOTHERE blocked if they saw it outside of ANEW. From a big picture point of view, partial blocks have created far more dramah than almost any other technical feature: people get just as mad when you partial block them and instead of limiting that anger to one page, where you can eventually talk them down and hopefully unblock them in the case of an edit warring block, they can be angry and spread that anger on multiple pages because they are Right(tm). It makes more sense just not to block someone and give them a warning than to partial block them in 99% of cases. In this case, however, there was enough to suggest that disruption would continue that a full block was preventative. When a full block is preventative and a partial block is likely to spread the issue elsewhere, then a full block makes total sense. Basically if you’re going to partial block, you should just warn since it is more likely to achieve long-term good. This passed the threshold for a warning there was indications that this user was likely to be a problem if they were page blocked (SPAs who are “right” tend yo cause issues everywhere.) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• The change by SarahSV mentioned above is good. An admin should always use clue and sometimes a partial block would be appropriate, and sometimes a site block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• The change by Sarah is a positive. If someone has rocked up and the first or functionally first thing they do is EW then a siteblock is probably warranted. If there's even a little more helpful activity then a pageblock becomes much more warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think that? It depends on the circumstances, but a genuine brand new user who reverts a few times because they don't understand why the system isn't accepting their changes properly (sic), good faith should be assumed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Probably more helpful than trading anecdotes and impressions is to gather and analyze data. Since pblocks have been instituted, how many editors have been pblocked? How many of those editors were then given a full block? If 90% of the pblocked editors went on to do something that resulted in a full block, then we can conclude pblocks are not effective. If it's only 10%, then we can conclude that pblocks are effective. Data > opinion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Data would be good. Sure, when deciding whether to impose a partial block or a sitewide one, one walks a fine line sometime between being judicious and assuming an abundance of good faith. My impression is that most partial blocks I, at least, apply do not escalate further, but that's obviously anecdotal. El_C 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not exactly prolific, but of the 6 partials I've issued, 4 have caused the editor to stop editing, 1 to resume the disruption after the end of the block, and 1 to immediately begin content dispute resolution on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Data time! I tried doing this with SQL, but it ended up timing out even on Toolforge SQL directly, so I've gone about it a slightly different way: rather than looking at the actual logging tables, which I couldn't find an easy way of doing without causing a timeout, I grabbed a list of user talk pages that had a partial block template on, and then checked those users against the API to see if they had any blocks. I then wrote a quick little bit of JS to pull out that API query and refine for only the users who had a currently active non-partial block.

  The result? 210 users were included in the query (that is to say, I had a sample of 210 users who had been partially blocked from editing). Of that 210, 42 of them are now fully blocked from editing. 32 of them are blocked indefinitely, whilst the other 10 have varying levels of temporary blocks.

  That seems like pretty good numbers to me, to be honest, but I'll leave that to those who are actually doing the blocking day to day to confirm or rebuke. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Naypta, that's very interesting, thank you for the analysis, although it immediately makes me long for a control group. I wonder: do we know what the sitewide recidivism rate is for full blocks? (Or was, before pblocks?) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So, there’s a reason people talk about lies, damn lies, and statistics. The presentation of data as well as whether it is capable of answering the question asked are both extremely important factors. In this case, the numbers might be interesting, but they don’t actually tell us all that much. First, as Izno points out, people could just quit after one. Next, the question is not if a full block later would occur, but if a full block at that point in time would have been better and cause less disruption. Those are subjective standards that are also point in time, and the data collected can’t really answer those questions at all. Finally, there’s the question of if the reaction to the block is better or worse if it’s partial from the blocked user. My experience observing this has been worse (people tend to get angrier is what I’m saying) and that causes more issues elsewhere. Anyway, just pointing out that “data>opinions” usually isn’t the best way to go about testing the effectiveness of subjective questions, since the data points on these topics tend to have many confounding factors. Basically you can pre-select your outcomes by asking the right question and picking a metric that corresponds to it. Something like that isn’t particularly useful in decision making, even if done with an attempt to be objective: the things being measured inherently can’t be. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: To be totally clear, I certainly don't mean to present a bunch of numbers and go "yes, this in and of itself should decide policy"; rather, I hope that having those numbers might be useful in terms of the decision-making here. You are, of course, completely right that you can pull out many conclusions from the same datasets.

For what it's worth, I've checked, and of those 210 partially blocked users, 43 are not indefinitely blocked and have made edits in the last 30 days. So that's 32/210 indefinitely blocked, 35/210 not blocked at all and have edited in the last 30 days, 8/210 have been temporarily blocked but active within the last 30 days, and the rest are presumably inactive. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. I wasn’t assigning intent to you. Just noting that data in itself can often be misleading and that in real life, interpreting data related to subjective judgements is something you normally hire a professional to do (as an example: your income taxes; all based on actual numbers, but if they’re in complex areas you should hire a tax accountant or tax lawyer.) Basically when we are asking as subjective a question as “Did this one technical feature prevent more or less disruption then this other technical feature”, raw numbers are rarely that useful as a decision making aid. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting though that Naypta's numbers match Izno's. Of Izno's set of 6 pblocks, 4/6 stopped editing, 1/6 continued to be disruptive, and 1/6 went on to be productive. Of Naypta's set of 210 pblocks, 32 (or about 1/6th) continued to be disruptive, 35 (again 1/6th) were productive, 8 somewhere in between disruptive and productive, and the remaining 135 (3.85/6) stopped editing. Which raises the question: would that 1/6th that was productive still have been productive if they were fully blocked instead of partially? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Policy pages are nothing but a reflection of current community consensus. I will absolutely lose it at any editor who's trying to change policy pages based on a local consensus or "common sense". Any changes must be made in line with a community-level consensus. With all that being said, I view both Ritchie's and Sarah's updates to be uncontentious and in line with this standard, simply reflecting an update in the overarching community consensus. The OP's accusation that Ritchie "changed the policy" is an egregious falsehood, unbecoming of the admin who made the accusation. It was clearly a simple update in wording meant to reflect the new partial blocking mechanism. This thread should be closed and condemned to the archives, never to be spoken of again. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Did you read the discussion at WP:ANEW that I linked to in my opening post? There were other administrators commenting here, including GorillaWarfare and TonyBallioni, who did read that discussion and agreed that it did appear that the intent of the change in wording Ritchie333 made to Wikipedia:Blocking policy was to make partial blocks the default for edit warring where any site-wide blocks used in lieu of partial blocks need to be justified. I noted the change here as, if site-wide blocks for edit warring are only to be made "if required", administrators should be aware of this change so they aren't caught by surprise if asked to defend a site-wide block as I was in this case. I'm at a loss to understand how you determined that noting the change here is "unbecoming" of me, and accusing me of making "an egregious falsehood" is no different than accusing me of lying, which is a personal attack. Will you be levying the same "egregious falsehood" claim against EdJohnston, who does a great deal of the heavy lifting at WP:ANEW, and who made similar observations regarding the change in that specific discussion?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think Sarah’s wording is fairly uncontentious and clearer, and wouldn’t object to it. If it’s the default, I think that’d be a policy change which would need further discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not read the relevant AN3 thread. While I did not see any intent of changing policy at face value based on the wording alone, looking at Ritchie's comments at AN3 I can see the clear motivation to delegitimize regular blocks in favor of partial blocks. This is unacceptable coming from one who had supposedly changed policy wording without motivation; a retroactive breach of WP:INVOLVED, perhaps. My apologies for condemning you without the full context. I'm actually extremely disappointed with Ritchie's behavior given this context and it's obvious that it was inappropriate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was expecting it to be a year or more from the implementation of partial blocks before sneaky changes to policies started compelling admins to use them, but I'm pretty sure in the initial RfC I predicted this exact thing was going to happen. I hadn't anticipated that silent changes would also compel an explanation for not using a tool in the set; good job on that escalation. That said, admins are servants of the community and I'm on board with the update if that's the community's wish, but I expect any such change will be the result of thorough consensus in a very-well-advertised RfC, and will be communicated in the admins' newsletter before it comes into effect. A short discussion among a few policy hawks on the policy's talk page is so egregiously not good enough that you should be ashamed, and the fact you tried to challenge an action based on a change you made and which you hadn't told anyone about is thoroughly within WP:POINT territory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can this be addressed?

I was looking at the Special:Userlist and noted that the username that immediately follows mine is that of a blocked account named (Redacted) (clearly I ruffled someone's feathers!). Is there any way this account name can be changed so that this insult doesn't just remain out in the world forever? Not super important, but it is a bit of a slap. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: please use meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia_Stewards and report that name for a "global lock and HIDE" - it will remove it from all lists. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like good advice. I personally feel we should be much more active in deleting these long-standing 'attack-name' accounts, and any new ones that come along. They maintain their insulting effect by the fact that they simply sit there, next to the genuine users name, and have a negative effect on this project long after their creators have been blocked. I haven't checked recently, but Oshwah had amassed quite a nice collection of them last time I looked. I suspect many others have too, and I imagine there are innumerable offensive/racist/homophobic and degrading account names there, also. They serve no purpose other than to illustrate how people can get away with being puerile and offensive and, in my view, Wikipedia should have matured enough by now to have addressed and removed them, whether they have actually edited, or not. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: while we can do something locally (oversight blocks with the hide option) it is almost always better to send an obvious attack name that has no constructive global edits to the stewards to deal with, you can send them an entire list by email if you have one - since it will remove the name from drop-downs/search suggestions/etc on every WMF project. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I don't have any list, as yet, but maybe I should start with Nigger', 'Cunt' and Oshwah (see here) and see how we get on. (Point of order: I make no linkage whatsoever between the three words - honest). Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

😯 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Does oversighting the username on the block actually remove it from the list of users? I haven't actually tested that yet. It does say in the oversight documentation that doing so will remove it from the list of users, but from my experience, I don't believe that to be true... Can someone confirm that it is? Actually, hold that thought. I can do it. I'll just look up a username in the oversight log where it was removed upon blocking and then try to find it... Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It does. The reason that I could see it in the list was because, well, I'm an oversighter. Duh! Testing it using incognito mode and while logged out did not display hidden users in Special:ListUsers. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah-TEST is an alternate account that I created, FYI. :-) I have many doppelgänger accounts that I created to prevent impersonation, but I blocked them immediately after creation; they don't need to edit or have any functionality whatsoever. See this page if you want the list. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for the info. I've followed your advice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• If it didn't predate my account by six years I'd accuse "Nosebig Fathead" of offensive truth-telling! Nosebagbear (talk)

LOL. ...OK, so I've now managed to build this list of 282 deeply offensive usernames, solely relating to the 'N-word' that have all been blocked, but are still capable of being presented to users anywhere on our projects. Some might think I'm being prudish by recommending their complete removal, but I see no reasonable justification in continuing to cause offence by retaining names that clearly either attack, harass or belittle certain individuals or groups. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Not prudish but prudent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the selection being based on names starting "Ni..." as users searching the list at that point pretty much know what they're going to find. More disruptive are those where the "ni..." occurs mid-name where their appearance will definitely be unanticipated. 164 found in quarry:query/21637 -- Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Both are good lists. I just wish that quarry (or our level of SQL) would take full regex as string input for statements. Else, I'd recommend the query string be '.*ni+gg+e+r+.*' or even '%ni+gg+e+r+%' if the . and the * couldn't be used... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, you really know how to make an editor spit out his coffee while scrolling through AN :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it does. Our "level" of sql is mariadb, and googling that and regex tells you exactly how. quarry:query/46558 quarry:query/46559 also handily shows whether they're blocked. —Cryptic 03:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic - Excellent! Thank you for letting me know this. I couldn't find any documentation that specifically stated what "level" of SQL or regex that we use, so I had to guess from what I could find in past statements. I'll definitely give it a google and see what regex wildcards are allowed, and their syntax (if different). Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume that the data ipb_expiry is a string, but when I added AND ipb_expiry = null;, AND ipb_expiry = "";, or even AND ipb_expiry != 'infinity'; - nothing returned. Ugh, it's been too long since I've done any SQL queries... I'm obviously quite rusty now... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You were looking for "AND ipb_expiry IS NULL" (see Null (SQL)#Common mistakes). Though the easiest way here would be to click the sort buttons on the ipb_expiry column. (Insert obligatory WP:Request a query ad here.) —Cryptic 13:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At least one name (NiggiV) shouldn't be in the list (and probably shouldn't be blocked) - Niggi is a name, probably similar to Nick (de:Niggi Schmassmann, de:Niklaus Starck, de:Niggi Schoellkopf). Similar names in the German Wikipedia haven't been blocked. Peter James (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we need an anti-harassment WikiProject to address derogatory usernames like these and other forms of harassment and personal attacks on the wiki, especially in the wake of the George Floyd protests. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 00:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

তত্ত্বমসী

'তত্ত্বমসী' it is actually a Sanskrit word used by ancient sages also by current day gurus and philosopher,s during their preaching and sermons ! It has has a great importance of spirituality. I have very little knowledge. As such I ask to related persons to contribute to create the article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.129.202 (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not something that requires attention from an administrator. You might find better help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages or Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to unblock Lightbreather

As part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) was site banned and subject to several restrictions. Following an appeal to ArbCom by email, a motion to unblock Lightbreather and lift the restirctions has been posted for discussion on-wiki. Comments and discussion are welcome on the motion page. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Lightbreather unban.

Mass twitter hacking note

Note that several large twitter accounts (Barack Obama, Kanye West, all major Bitcoin companies, and several different celebrities) have been hacked to promote some bitcoin scam; prepare for a wave of spam and vandalism on affected articles. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Twitter really should have taken out that backdoor password: "Joshua." Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Saw it hit Elon Musk, Apple, and a guy down the street who only has a few hundred followers. Changed my password, since they're not focusing just on big accounts. Schazjmd (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Article created at 2020 Twitter Bitcoin scam if anyone's interested. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All verified twitter accounts are now locked. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumpin' Jehosaphat! An alert from twitter would've been nice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Highly doubtful that a hacker has bypassed hundreds of 2FAs on famous people's accounts. This has to be API-related or a deeply-compromised admin account. ValarianB (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIV and WP:PA

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 edition needs administrative attention : [[16]] . The offensive and insulting approach and vocabulary of the user:Joshua Jonathan is not tolerable. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to suggest that someone pushing a certain point of view is a point of view pusher. In any case, I advise you to withdraw this; at best it will be simply closed as regarding a content dispute (and as such not within the purview of this board), or at worse, your edits may come under further scrutiny and Joshua Jonathan's assertions borne out. And good luck with that. ——Serial ^# 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: the use of the word silly should be addressed, and please stop the threatening tone. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Recent edits by سیمون دانکرک. I see several editors butting heads, perhaps, but basically trying to work out their differences on a talk page, which is what they're supposed to do. I don't see anything that strikes me as breaching WP:CIV or WP:PA, and I say that as somebody who's fairly conservative on WP:CIV issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and RoySmith: With all due respect, If you don't react to this impolite use of words (silly ) and continue to ignore it, I gather that other administrators need to review your approach and reactions towards this especiall case of apparent insult. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's silly to get hung up on the use of the word silly, the mildest critical word in the English language. If you think that's uncivil and a personal attack then you may wish to avoid the rest of the internet. Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What would the Ministry of Silly Walks think? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think he'd bump it over to the Brigadier. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@سیمون دانکرک, yes I think you should definitely invite more administrators to this discussion, particularly in order to review mine and RoySmith's approaches. ——Serial ^# 14:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That comment above is hardly offensive. I am a huge proponent of civility here, and that's not even scraping being uncivil, let alone a personal attack. SN and RoySmith are correct, this is a content dispute and talk needs to continue on the talk page regarding it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of being called Pythonesque, I think this whole thread has shown a tendency to become silly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought this thread was for arguments? ——Serial ^# 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you want the War RoomIn my George C. Scott voice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any other serious administrator to comment on the subject not trying to slur it? سیمون دانکرک (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

IP Users 74.111.2.34 and 24.177.130.98 promoting false, biased, dangerous, and unsourced information about COVID-19

On the page for Security Theater, these users have promoted information that currently poses a public health hazard:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Security_theater&action=history

The revision in question: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Security_theater&type=revision&diff=967010122&oldid=966999876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfax-nimbus (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is really interesting what happened right here. The assumptions, the readily accepted conclusions, and the community discussion. Weregerbil (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Idiot's Guide to Autoblocks

OK, it's official. I'm clearly an idiot, as I have found the information and instructions at WP:AUTOBLOCK and Template:Autoblock wholly confusing. Please would someone with more skill than me in this area take a look at this post at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Livingstone_Imonitie#Sock_pupperty and remove the autoblock from the, User:Livingstone Imonitie appears to be an innocent party to a block I made a couple of days ago. I am being called away IRL, and have found the instructions send me round in circles, so I'm reluctant to say to the blocked user - 'just follow them', and I feel they need the courtesy of a quick response, which I am unable to give them. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the unblock request didn't follow the directions, IIRC it specifically asks them to enter the autoblock ID number. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Straight and curly apostrophes on iPads

• User:Tribe of Tiger put this query in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for responding to my query by copying it here. Very kind of you.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Help with moves using Ipad
  • I am not sure if this the correct place to request assistance. I edit on a aprrox. 1.5 year old up-to-date Ipad. I was attempting to help move articles with a curly apostrophe in the title. Although my Ipad would allow me to correct "curly" in the article body, when I tried to correct/move the title, it kept producing a curly apostrophe, instead of a straight apostrophe. By using my really old desk computer, I could do the move and change from curly to straight. Because one device works, and the other does not, I wonder if this is a problem with the WP software. I am not a techinically savvy person, by any means. Thanks for your consideration. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Tribe of Tiger: This is a feature (if you can call it that...) enabled by default across Apple OSes. You can go into your Settings, finding the section pertaining to keyboard and turn off smart quotes/smart punctuation, or something like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• • • @QEDK:Thanks so much! Will give a try! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I've had the same issue with my stupid iphone. Springee (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh wow, we can stop this madness from happening?! I know what I'm doing tonight. QRep2020 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Evelynkwapong539

• Evelynkwapong539 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there, this user who has had issues with edit warring and a rude personality is reverting edits that I personally believe were fine over at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 , They've had similar issues related to the show before, and though I restored the page to what I think is better, I'll let you guys make a call on it so as to not edit war, but I do want this user to know this behavior is not welcome here, Thanks! Noelephant (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I let a note for Evelynkwapong539 here. There seems to be zero response to the previous warnings. I'm guessing that people who aren't confident of their English ability may stay away from talk pages, but still. Their edit summaries indicate they can talk well enough when they try. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor

• Florenceandthemachine32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone take a look at user:Florenceandthemachine32? See Special:Contributions/Florenceandthemachine32. Making multiple edits on various pages which are in general being reverted. Marking edits as minor when they are not, using copyright material also seem to continue regardless. But mainly despite multiple requests the user resolutely refuses to engage on any talk page about what they are attempting to achieve. A lot of it is minor - changes of photographs being typical but then something more substantial gets hidden in those. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree the editor's pattern of editing is disruptive. Includes removing alt text (why do that?) from image captions and persistent tinkering with images and their placement. Very rare to see edit summary. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've went over the editor's contribution history & at no time has the editor responded to concerns, either on article talkpages or (more concerning) his/her own talkpage. At the very least, this could be a WP:CIR situation. Either the editor is wilfully ignoring messages? or doesn't understand what the little 'orange' bar notification means, thus leading back to my CIR theory. At least a 1-week block is required, to get his/her attention & stop the disruptive main space edits. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect we have the first sock -----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And now what looks like a Socksmallholding :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Some additional material (to save time) this morning's sock started with an IP located in Ipswich who then became a brand new editor Tigerbws. We had exactly the same pattern on Culture of England in the recent past with multiple Ipswich based IPs making similar edits before Florenceandthemachine32 was created, they interwove a bit before the IP use was adandoned. Today with have an exact repeat of that pattern with Tigerbws created after the initial IP editing. All refuse the talk page option. I've also asked for semi-protection -----Snowded ^TALK 07:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done One month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Back again after one week block, still disruptive editing, still marking as minor when not. Still no attempt to discuss. Obviously not learning, so block needs to be indefinite. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for  Confirmed sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

closed AFD reverted 10 times back and forth

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Close_Enough_episodes&action=history Ten times so far today someone has reverted the original closer, and 9 of those times been reverted so far. Not sure what's going on here, can someone look at it? Dream Focus 13:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, All the vandals have already been blocked. I was thinking of semi-protecting the AfD, but looking at some of the contribution histories, that wouldn't be effective. So, I just added it to my watchlist. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia

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.

– Frood (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, please can someone take a look at the recent edit history of Towera Vinkhumbo. Mercy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Flag remoal

Can someone please remove rollback from this account, my laptop is not working so Im using a tablet and sometimes what action I pick is not what happens, don't want a unintenional mistake. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Have you tried the gadget that asks for confirmation when rolling back? --Izno (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but I mostly use Twinkle any way, I asked for rollback because Twinkle was having trouble with rollback, but I think that's been fixed. Really don't need it anyway. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Izno (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Oversight MIA?

I emailed oversight an hour ago about a defamatory article, no response yet. Could someone ring some bells ? Email me or ping me or get someone to read their email? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

oh, and block the offending editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls ban 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.

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Site ban proposal: SashiRolls

ArbCom has declined this case, which punts it back to us. My concerns are I think representative of those who have challenged this:

1. The "consensus" appears to be a bare majority of votes, whereas I would expect consensus to be more robust where it comes to something as serious as a ban;
2. While the minimum 24 hours was met, this seems a very short time in this specific case.

Accordingly, I propose that we reopen the discussion, and request that the final closure provide a rationale in line with what would be needed at a contentious AfD or whatever.

I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith, I just don't think this represents our best work as admins. Guy (help!) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think admins are solely to blame; I don't think this represents our best work as editors. ——Serial ^# 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Paul August ☎ 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening I'm assuming we are discussing if we should in fact open a review? Or is the subect officially already reopened per Admin Guy? Jusdafax (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because MastCell gave a detailed and reasonable response at the case request, and more than sufficient time for discussion was given. As was pointed out in the case request, over 90% of comments had been made before the day of the close, things were slowing down, and there was a consensus based both on arguments and numbers. ~60% with strong arguments is enough for a consensus. Sashi’s efforts to appeal the ban proved what everyone who supported it said: this is an editor who has a list of enemies and views everything as a battleground. We’ve already wasted more than enough time on this, and the community has already resolved it. SashiRolls is site banned, and the close was within administrative discretion. We should not overturn it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, that response does not address the miscounting of comments supporting and opposing. If such things don't matter then why even bother with a consensus? Just let admins do whatever they feel is proper per their discretion. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Depending on how you count it, you’re looking at 60-62% (SilkTork below. I think I’ve counted a few times and get in that range as well.) Sashi had it at 55% by counting neutrals as opposed in his math I believe, which is also a way to do it. In my mind, I’d say that 60% is roughly 2/3. MastCell didn’t say exactly 67% he said approximately 2/3. 60% is around where I start referring to things as “about two-thirds” in my own speech, so I don’t think there really was any overcounting going on. People just have different thresholds for where they start using common fractions in their colloquial speech. MastCell and I both apparently share the trait of seeing it at around 3/5. 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 are the most commonly used fractions in every day speech, and people tend to reference them rather than the less common ones. I get the frustration here by some, but I also think the easier explanation was that MastCell was just typing like he talks. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The close said greater than 2/3 (">2/3"). When I asked MastCell about it [17], he characterized it as "a clear (super-)majority" [18]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ha! I’ve been working too hard. I read it as “~2/3” every time. I don’t really think that changes much in terms of consensus. I think 60% with good reasoning is a perfectly fine percentage to ban someone with since that is a supermajority and consensus is not just numbers. Anyway, apologies for misreading that. Striking the above :)TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, a site ban is one of the most serious sanctions possible. Consensus for such a measure should be rock solid and accurately reflect the tenor of the comments. I get it, you opened the ban discussion and are happy Sashi won't be around here anymore to annoy some deeply entrenched and connected editors a couple years ago. What percentage of content discussions with 60% consensus are closed as "successful?" It's probably less than 10%. Shouldn't a site ban closure aim a little higher than that? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think content discussions are the best analogy here, and yes, I’m aware of my biases. 60% is in the range where it usually can go either way in content discussions. Much above that, and it’s an obvious consensus, significantly less and it’s obvious no consensus. High 50s to low 60s is about where the “discretionary range” is for non-policy RfCs. If the arguments are strong, it’s enough to carry. I’m biased in this case obviously, but if there were another close, I’d find literally everything else has been tried to be a much stronger argument than try something less drastic. Again, I’m biased, but I think I’d feel that way if I was uninvolved too. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

i'd quibble with Tony about a lot of things, but not about the difference between 60% and 67%; this doesn't hinge on that. I think the broader point is, "what level of consensus to site ban?", to which I'd answer "overwhelming consensus", also known as the Kemp standard ("damsure of our evidence"). Because of the late oppose swing and because comments were still rolling in at an active clip, I didn't feel like this discussion got to that level of consensus, whatever the exact numbers might have been. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support to simply put the matter to bed. (I commented but didn't vote in the discussion, and don't expect to vote) I don't see a fatal flaw in the close, but the numbers seemed to not jibe, which is a good reason to not give numbers in a close. It is a ban, after all, and simply continuing the discussion for an addition 48 hours (my guess) isn't going to hurt anyone, and whatever the outcome, we can have faith in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You think that opening another couple of noticeboard free-for-alls will "put the matter to bed"? Oh, Dennis—you must be new here. :P MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening and allowing it stay open through the weekend (or however-long) per Sashi's original request. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. I do not believe a consensus was reached in the initial thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support MastCell did pretty well even if we're thinking maybe not perfect and so a big thank you to MastCell for jumping into the breech on this. I think that a more thorough process and slower close is in order. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support for the reasons most thoroughly described by Darouet below. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Arbcom declined 9-0. How many bites at the apple do you get? Sashi continues to blame everyone else, bring up old, irrelevant grudges, and hasn't displayed an iota of introspection. Their only admission is that they may not have presented the case well enough -- not that they present an obvious, ongoing problem to the community. But, let's waste another month, and then another month. If they want to reenter, let them spend a few months examining why their block log is so long and consider the possibility that their actions, not those of everyone else, are the cause. As Pope Julius supposedly said to Michelangelo, when will you make it end? O3000 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Numerous arbs explicitly stated that they were punting this back to the community, so the unanimous decline hardly precludes further discussion here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If you think Mastcell's close was within admin discretion, and ARCOM's decline seems to say that it was. Then the appropriate thing would be for Sashirolls to wait the 6 months per the standard offer and appeal to the community. Why would we do any different in this case as opposed to others? Valeince (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valeince: I don't think ARBCOM's discussion meant that they felt it was within discretion. As is quoted below they said things like "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." They argue it's the community's job to figure this out, not theirs. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: In my mind, the only reason for an out of usual process review, which this is, is because the closer was found to have closed the discussion outside of their discretion. The ARBCOM case was built around this argument and was declined to be heard with the arbs confirming that since this was within admin discretion then the community can review. To me, that means that the review can happen when SashiRolls appeals the ban, which per usual circumstances is after the standard offer. Valeince (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd have said that they were pretty clear that the community can reopen the ban discussion at its own discretion. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree, and I think our discretion should lead us to use the normal procedures in these cases. Which is the aforementioned standard offer unblock request. Valeince (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Wait for a statement (appeal?) from SashiRolls, whenever they are ready; Oppose until then. There was a clear consensus there is a conduct problem. There was a sideshow whether the situation should be taken up by ArbCom rather than the community, indirectly causing a perhaps unfortunately-timed discussion close. Regardless, an open-ended discussion reopen right now will just become us chewing our own cud and won't solve a thing. A reopen in response to a reflective statement/appeal by SashiRolls indicating how they would change their editing behaviour would be much more productive. The Arbcom interlude didn't resolve much, but did establish that while opinions how good it was may vary, the previous close is certainly not so egregiously bad to require just being set aside. That being so, let's continue the discussion if and when it has a hope of resolving the situation better, not as an exercise in procedural fairness or just trying to reverse the flow of time. Martinp (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Guy's concerns. This is the nuclear option, the state of the consensus should not be in dispute. Springee (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni & O3000. MastCell already gave further clarification specifically referencing weight of viewpoints at ArbCom,[19] which contradicts this idea put out there that they were just counting !votes. Most arbs were also not impressed with Sashiroll's WP:NOTTHEM behavior, dubious requests for extensions, etc., so even if the ban was overturned, there's a pretty clear indication that the behavior wasn't going to change after their final-final-final warning. Even if the !votes had been 50-50, it still could have been closed in favor of the ban because the continued problem was demonstrated that other sanctions had been exhausted (i.e., opinions no matter the percentage opposing the ban did not carry sufficient weight). That is how WP:CONSENSUS works.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has guidance on following that up: Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result. The better approach would have been to take the first step of asking MastCell on their talk page to add clarification to their close with respect to weight if that is really the sticking point. They gave a further explanation elsewhere, so we're at a point there would need to be a very high bar for reopening the discussion. When an editor has a history of tendentious behavior that's repeatedly established to the point of needing the "nuclear" option, part of a closer's discretion is to not let the discussion languish when the problems/endpoints are clear and the situation is unlikely to get better by letting it sit longer. There would need to be a pretty grand reason for exception at this point after both the initial close and what happened at ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni & 03000. I found MastCell's reasoning to be very compelling, and SashiRolls has eaten enough of our time.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not only do we need a fair process, we need the appearance of a fair process. I don't think we have that. I'm concerned about a number of issues: 1) that the discussion was still very much ongoing, 2) that the editor asked for a delay until the weekend and didn't get it, 3) that reasonable people could have reasonable concerns that the closer was "rushing" to the close due to a bias. I don't have a clue if the 3rd one is true, but the arguments for it (active in a similar area on opposite sides, only minimally active with admin actions) aren't crazy. A ban is a really serious thing and closing such a discussion should inspire confidence that the right process happened in addition to the right result. I don't think we are there at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - what arbs said about re-opening: "If people want to reopen the ban discussion for greater input, that's a community issue." [20] "nothing in the closure of the request would prevent further community discussion" [21] "giving leave to the community to decide whether to re-open" [22] "If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement." [23] "there is nothing to stop the community from re-discussing the matter or overturning the close" [24] "leave it up to the community whether they wish to reopen the ban discussion" [25] the remaining 3 votes didn't address re-opening [26] [27] [28] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose MastCell’s close was within admin discretion, Sashirolls participated and there was enough time for everyone to have their say. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A close on false premises does not 'admin discretion' make, and particularly not on something as serious as a site-ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sashirolls had plenty time to respond to the previous thread dozens of times, and they just kept digging themselves in deeper. Just their behavior during the discussion would be enough to justify a ban, never mind the constant battleground behavior and general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited, plus the harassment that was the immediate cause of the discussion. Sashiroll's behavior in their arbitration request just confirms that they have learned nothing and will continue to cause problems if allowed back. Obviously, the correct result was reached, and that's what is important. Sashiroll can ask for a community appeal themselves if that's really what they want to do. Otherwise, this is just a pointless exercise. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  general unpleasantness they brought to basically every page they edited - Every page? Sashi's top edited page is Yellow vests movement. Is there any general unpleasantness or any disruption on that page? How about their other top pages: 2019–2020 Algerian protests, Sudanese Revolution, or François Rabelais? Actually, Sashi's conflicts are limited to a small group of pages (e.g. Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders) and editors. Case in point: the antecedent to the site ban proposal was a partial block, not even disruptive enough to merit a full block. I think you exaggerate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "The close was within admin discretion" and "the discussion would benefit from being open longer and seeing more thoughtful input" are not mutually exclusive positions, and so I don't know why the former is being advanced as an argument against the latter. Furthermore, citing pieces of CLOSECHALLENGE out of context isn't helpful; this isn't so much about whether the close was wrong (I'm not certain it was) as that it was too soon. A site-ban discussion can always use more input, especially from uninvolved editors. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm the only one that cited CLOSECHALLENGE so far, I will clarify that nothing was cited out of context. It also does mention the aspect of the timing of the close being challenged sometimes, but my main focus was on the weight aspect many people had brought up in previous conversations before this one. Some mistakenly thought that MastCell basically ignored WP:!VOTE and basically tallied votes. There was an easier route to clarifying that wasn't the case before initiating this next step is all. It's not extremely rare for a request to the closer to add clarification to their close as part of that process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Not much comment on the wikilegal bureaucracy this particular thread concerns, but I want to point something out: in the time since the ban went into effect and discussion began about reopening discussion and doing an arb case request, instead of being introspective or acknowledging any problems, SashiRolls has spent hundreds and hundreds of edits creating userspace pages that continue to point fingers everywhere else. Far and away the biggest reason I supported a ban is because, from what I've seen, it seems like SR is quick to turn a disagreement into a personal investigation, digging up dirt, combing through user histories, finding patterns, connecting dots in conspiracies, making lists, making winking insinuations about motives, etc. It's fundamentally incompatible with healthy interpersonal communication/collaboration here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, he did just get banned in what I think was a flawed process. That would cause a lot of people to get pretty upset and act poorly. That said, I suspect if this discussion does get reopened and he doesn't get banned it won't be long until he is unless he figures out how to behave here. If does get reopened I imagine that a lot of folks, including me, will be expecting to see evidence of improvements now. He seems to be a really productive contributor with big interpersonal skill issues (mainly a temper which also makes him really easy to troll). We've had a lot of those and most of them end up banned. But some improve. In any case, for me, it's a lot more about the process than the actual case at the moment. I'd like to see close ban discussions be taken at least as seriously a close RfA. This one wasn't IMO. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think we probably got the right result, but not in the right way. The close was made too soon - there were three discussions, all ongoing, the main one was trending toward oppose, and the user had requested a more nuanced ArbCom case where they would be able to address the concerns raised as they would be busy until the weekend (although the user had continued to comment in the thread, these do not appear to be considered posts, but quick emotional responses). The tally was vague and inaccurate - on my count there was less than 60% in favour of a ban, so not quite the 3/4 mentioned in the close. And the oppose views were not appropriately considered. I don't see a strong enough community support for a ban in that discussion. If we are to site ban this user (and it appears to me that SashiRolls is the sort of user we should be considering for a site ban because of their long history of personalising disputes with little understanding of how that impacts the individuals they are attacking and the wider community as a whole) then we should at least have the decency of allowing them to address the concerns raised, and to consider carefully the views of those in the community who feel a site ban is not appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review. ArbCom's decline to take the case does not mean they endorse the ban, just that a review of it is not within their remit. So that outcome says nothing about numbers of chances, bites of apples, etc. The ban itself is an issue where reasonable people can disagree and have opposite opinions, and I think there has been enough challenge to the closure of the ban discussion to warrant a review of it. I think SilkTork presents the problems perfectly, just above (and that's from someone who thinks a ban is probably the right result). We are, after all, talking about a total ban for an editor who has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia, and I think anyone in that position deserves fair treatment and to be seen to have received fair treatment. Whether one supports the ban or opposes it (for the record, I oppose it), I would hope everyone would agree that we should have a fair review process - and I'd say exactly the same about a ban that I supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I think MastCell's close was made in good faith, and that there's a strong argument that it was within admin discretion. But that does not mean it can not be challenged, and those who suggest otherwise do not appear to understand the basics of how Wikipedia admin actions work. All admin actions are open to challenge and review, be they good ones, bad ones, indifferent ones. All that's needed is a consensus to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I !voted at the SashiRolls' ANI to send the case to ArbCom to give them a full hearing (but did not !vote on the siteban issue), and even though ArbCom only considered MastCell's close, the 9-0 decision (and I assume ArcCom are familiar with the subject), makes me think we are at an end here. We have seen very good editors who – for various reasons – were just not compatible with editing on a collaborative project and had to leave. During the recent case, I have seen very reasonable editors like Cullen328, who advocated strongly for SashiRoll's most recent return, now !vote for their siteban. The long-term pattern is not good, and there is no evidence that it is changing. Regretfully, oppose and move on. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support review - that was not a great close at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the close was not unreasonable by Mastcell, but I think was based on a couple of premises that we might as well take the chance to clarify. If only, because satisfying more of the community that a ban issued in their name was reasonable is hardly a negative. Given some of SR's behaviour around everything, I'm actually more hostily inclined, but I view it as important to not skip a process just because it gets me the result I might want in that instance. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I supported a ban and still do however it was closed too soon for my liking, Also supporting per Hobbit and NoseBagBear. –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a matter of procedure. The previous discussion was closed and closed properly. Arbcom reviewed it and agreed; so absolutely NO need to "re"-open. NOW if (and only if) SR were to request an unban, (with perhaps some considerations they'd be willing to give) and you were to say OPEN a NEW discussion - I might consider that. I know it's a silly point of order - but that's how wiki has always worked IMO. If you'd rather consider this a comment - then so be it. — Ched (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. I haven't been following the details of this saga, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with the AN close by MastCell, particularly in light of their reasoned defence of it at the ArbCom page. We promote our admins to make calls like these and unless it's completely out of left field (which with a 2:1 majority in favour of the ban doesn't seem plausible) we should accept the decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell certainly had the impression that it was 67%, which is why he closed it that way; but I have read through the discussion twice, and both times come up with a figure around 60% (59% first time, then 62% second time - some folks comments are not quite clear). I'd be interested in your own reading of the consensus tally in that discussion Amakuru. My view might be quite wrong, and it would be valuable to get a third admin opinion. SilkTork (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I was opposed to the community ban, I don't believe it is necessary for the community to re-open the discussion. I know much has been made about how "soon" the discussion was closed, but I would note it was kept open for nearly 72 hours, which certainly does more than just meet the 24-hour minimum. I also realize SR had asked for the discussion to be kept open until the weekend so they could have time to respond, but the fact that they contributed to the discussion more than 30 times (as was pointed out in the arbcom request) shows they in fact had time to respond. If Sashi wishes to be unbanned by the standard process, they are welcome to do so, but procedurally there was nothing wrong with the original discussion. Calidum 15:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I believe MastCell gave a great explanation of the close rationale, but like Dennis Brown stated, reopening will "put the matter to bed" and then we can alleviate any doubt. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MastCell's explanation in the Arbcom thread amply demonstrates, the close was procedurally sound. Not only that, the outcome was substantively correct. There is no need for "putting the matter to bed" more than it already has been. Reopening the thread would just mean piling up a heap of pointless wikilawyering and drama. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the way to "put this to bed" is to put this to bed, not to have another discussion about it. MastCell gave a lengthy explanation for the close at the ArbCom request and I don't see that there's any new arguments or anything else which would change the outcome. Dealing with disruptive users is a timesink. Hut 8.5 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose definitely a close call, but within reasonable discretion to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support- When the closing admins feels it is necessary to exaggerate the level of support, that's a bad close. If you are using good judgement, there's no reason to be dishonest.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – per Ched: the previous discussion was closed within admin discretion and Arbcom reviewed it and agreed. SR is free to request a new discussion of the ban at any time. Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10. -- puddleglum^2.0 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening. There were valid concerns raised and I don't see any downside in reopening a discussion especially when it is about sitebanning a user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Rusf10 and my reasoning at the arbcase request. The ban discussion suffered from a number of major procedural issues and cannot be treated as definitive for a discussion as contentious as this one has been. CactusJack2 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I guess put me in the oppose camp, as the closer of the prior thread, but maybe that doesn't need to be said. My gut instinct is that these procedure-obsessed arguments obscure the fact that SashiRolls is fundamentally a poor fit for this project, and in some cases they're more a vehicle for people to pick a bone with me, personally, than the product of any conviction that SashiRolls is a net positive here. (That was evident in the WP:RFARB request as well). But maybe that's just my solipsism talking.

  I guess I also think that, if you look around the world today and decide that the single greatest injustice worthy of your discretionary time and outrage was the closure of the SashiRolls's community-ban discussion, then we have different sets of priorities. Partly for that reason, I don't intend to participate in further wiki-litigation on this subject, other than to say that an admin would have to be crazy, stupid, or both to volunteer to close this or subsequent discussions. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone would dispute that there are far greater injustices currently going on elsewhere in the world. In fact, I'm not comfortable using the term 'injustice' to describe this situation at all. However, I'm puzzled by your apparent implication that real-world issues over which the average Wikipedian has little control should be preclude us from participating in this discussion. Any admin could respond to scrutiny of their admin actions by pointing out that there are more important things to worry about. I don't think it helps the situation for you to use red herrings to dismiss the scrutiny of your close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 1:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support reopening the discussion that was held here to consider banning SashiRolls. There are several important reasons why the discussion should be reopened:

1. There was not a "consensus" for banning them at the time the decision was made, and
2. The vast majority of editors here who commented in the later phases (e.g. a couple days after the discussion opened) opposed the ban.
3. El_C, who in my mind was unfairly criticized by SashiRolls, nevertheless explained that they sought "no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls."
4. SashiRolls has suggested that longstanding content disputes may be playing a role in (at least some) admin views towards them, and that probably deserves some investigation.
5. A decision to ban a longtime and productive editor should be made on the basis of largescale community support. When a discussion by editors here has turned against banning, but a decision to ban is made anyway, that decision can come across as reckless. Using very powerful administrator tools in the such a context, and closing down discussion, would not be responsible.
6. SashiRolls asked for one weekend to defend themselves, and that time was not granted. Some have written that SashiRolls' posts prior to the weekend prove no such time was needed. I find that to be an extraordinary position, and not the conclusion of an unbiased observer. First, if any of us take editing and collaboration here seriously, we know that some disputes on Wikipedia go back for many years. It is wholly legitimate that an explanation of conflict might take at the very least a weekend of research, and a few edits in the interim prove nothing otherwise. Suppose that after SashiRolls' request for more time, they had written nothing at all: could their silence have been used to ban them? With such faulty logic, any outcome no matter how unwarranted can be justified. Second, what is lost by waiting a week to ban someone? Editors were still commenting frequently, and our views are what determine consensus. Lastly, if someone asks for time when they may be banned, the least we can do is honor that request.

I apologize if I offend any admins with these comments: I understand that admin work is difficult, and that work helps, among other things, keep the vandals at bay. But for regular contributors the bar for admin action is higher, and that's particularly true when we're discussing indefinite banning. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It was close, and a difficult decision to make, but the correct decision was made in the end. FWIW, if the consensus was close to NOT banning, and this question was asked I would felt the same way. I'm with MastCell. Any admin willing to take this up now has my sympathies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree with Vanamonde that closing within admin discretion isn't a strong reason to oppose reexamining a closure, and I agree with SilkTork and Nosebagbear that, even if the outcome is probably correct, it is worth being absolutely clear on that in this instance. What keeps me from supporting is that beyond the optics of the close, few people bring up valid problems with the outcome. Others have pointed out the weaknesses of the procedural points such as the length of time and being within discretion, and many of those in support acknowledge that they think the outcome was correct even if the close was not up to their standards. I don't think either side should be taken lightly, but WP:NOTBURO makes me lean towards considering whether we think the result was correct, and from the discussion here I don't see much reason to think it wasn't. I think the ideal course is to let SashiRolls make an unblock request themselves rather than decide an appeal on their behalf. This shouldn't be considered a veiled oppose---I agree with others that there's value in reopening the discussion---but I'm not convinced it's the ideal path for the community to take right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Sir Joseph (;tldr). Having seen the editor's username before but being unfamiliar with the rest of it, I had been watching the discussion intently and was looking forward to more discussion and the promised defence when it was unexpectedly (to me) closed. I disagree that the user's request for extension until the weekend is invalidated by their level of participation; they were reacting to a situation which requires much less time and effort than preparing a coherent defence. It is not lost on me that we are talking about banning a long-time editor. A request for unban is sure to require a much stronger consensus; it only makes sense that so should the ban. If there is a community consensus, it can only get more clear from prolonging the discussion, not less. Revisiting the issue doesn't amount to a verdict on the previous close one way or the other. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as an unnecessary timesink. The close was adequately explained, 3 times the required length of time elapsed before the close, and there was a consensus to site ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe there was consensus for the block. And anyone who pulls out the ol' "reblocks are cheap" chestnut in the future should be forced to review this debacle in its entirety.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the close was well within administrative discretion, which also seems to have been the arbitrators' opinion. If SashiRolls has this much-ballyhooed "defense" they can write it in a ban appeal just like anyone else. All of this procedural wrangling is wasting all of our time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per SilkTork. And the vote count fault is even more serious because the late votes were trending to opposing the siteban after El C's comment. That reminds of the vote trend discussion about bureaucrat RfA closes. SashiRolls should be allowed to present a defence with a less stressful time schedule, as the filer clearly had the time to his homework before presenting it as well. --Pudeo (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, there is WP:AAB#Appeals by third party, which indicates that SashiRolls has to initiate the process. If he wants a review, he can say so on his talk page, and the request can be copied to here. (And in that event, the discussion probably should be reopened.) In fact, there has been no notification of this discussion on his talk page. I'd also recommend that he post on his talk page the detailed response that he said he wanted to post in the original discussion if given more time, so that editors here can see that. It's strange to have the community try to evaluate the reopening prospect based on a request from a third party, and without the banned editor indicating whether or not he wants to go through it or what reasons he wants to give. Secondly, the community has a lot better things to do than to waste time on another discussion that will end up not changing anything. This really would be an unnecessary time-sink. And how many times does the community have to discuss this person, given how many problems there have been before? Thirdly, some editors don't much like MastCell's close, but it was a reasonable (and, I think, correct) close, so the case that it wasn't perfect does not mean that the participation of so many editors in the original discussion should be essentially set aside. ArbCom determined that the process wasn't manifestly flawed, and at most a further discussion will only determine that MastCell's close was reasonable and good-faith, but not unanimously agreed about. Fourth, SashiRolls' comments at the Arb request page are not particularly indicative that he will come forth with a good argument for leniency. Even though Guy advised him to take some amount of responsibility and avoid blaming others ([29]), SashiRolls' ended up saying "I will agree that I react badly to being continually targeted by a small group" of editors [30]. That's essentially saying that I regret that you treated me so badly. It's pretty unlikely that there will be a strong enough consensus to undo the ban. And finally, as I write this, the raw !vote count is 22 support and 24 oppose. Given how some editors clutched their pearls over the need that there be an overwhelming numerical consensus in these things, there better be a clear consensus to overturn the previous consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and notified SashiRolls via talk page template for completeness. Best, Darren-M talk 01:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: the close was within discretion and the user in question made 45 edits to the thread during the discussion, while also alleging they were being "lynched". The arguments about a productive editor are not convincing given the amount of community time already spent on various discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as "an unnecessary time sink" to quote Floq. I recommend that this editor spend six months or more in self-reflection and attitude adjustment. An appeal based on an acknowledgement of the full range of past bad behaviors, and specific promises of much better behavior in the future, without any blaming of others, might well succeed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - My review of the CBAN discussion and MastCell's explanation of the closing are sufficient to show that there was nothing wrong with the discussion or the close, and SashiRolls should remain site-banned. Common sense says so as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Initial closure was correct and well reasoned IMO. I see no legitimate reason to continue beating this horse carcass. -FASTILY 02:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment ( I previously !voted above ): A number of oppose !votes are based on the view that the editor is happy with the outcome or that SR's is just going to waste more time. Those are arguments for the ANI discussion. They are not arguments as to if the closing was handled properly. The question here shouldn't be if SR was rightly CBAND. The question should be if the irregularities are sufficient to call the close into disrepute. The fact that so many editors are saying the close was bad is a serious issue. If we can't get a consensus that the close was good the ANI should re-opened (unarchived) to allow the discussion to continue and a new and better closing to occur else editors will rightly loose a level of faith in the system. Additionally, Mastcell's comments above should give editors pause. The comments aren't saying why the close was proper (thought they as defend their closing in the Arbcom discussion). Instead Mastcell states they don't think SR's is a good fit for Wikipedia. They may be right but as a closer they need to be an impartial arbiter of the arguments. Saying they think SR shouldn't be here certainly looks like a super vote. The closing must stand on the merits of how the closer weighed the arguments, not on the closer's personal feelings on the matter. Springee (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Springee:I agree, Mastcell's comments above are just as bad if not worse than his close. When he says "My gut instinct is that these procedure-obsessed arguments obscure the fact that SashiRolls is fundamentally a poor fit for this project", he basically admitted that his close was a "super vote", not an objective assessment of consensus. In his mind, Sashi needed to be banned regardless so the procedure by which it was done doesn't matter. Then to cap things off he makes a afallacy of relative privation by comparing our complaint of his improper close to other injustices around the world. So Mastcell, next time you go to a restaurant and there is a problem with your food and you complain to the manager, I hope he tells you that you have no right to complain because there are starving people in Africa.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - for the most part per SilkTork but with difference regarding the result. I'm of the mind that community site bans should not be closed by a single admin., especially in cases where there are strong arguments on both sides. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The close was fine, there was enough time given for SashiRolls to respond, this is just wasting time. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support the closing statement misrepresented the discussion by overcounting those supporting Sashi's ban. That ought to be a bigger deal, but seeing many admins in this thread come down against a questioning of an admin's potential mistakes is not encouraging. You can chalk just about anything up to "admin discretion," but misrepresenting a consensus ought not to be discretionary. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - ShashiRolls has been afforded more than adequate due process concerning their editing privileges on this privately owned website. MastCell's assessment of the CBAN discussion was a reasonable weighing of consensus. Arbcom did not "punt it back to us"; they declined an Arbcom case after the community banned an editor. That should be the end of it, unless and until ShashiRolls chooses to appeal the ban to the community. - MrX 🖋 14:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• By my count, 6 of the 9 arbs plainly stated that this was a matter for the community to discuss further if we chose to do so. I don't know what you call that, but I call it punting the issue back to the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - While the whole thing met the bare minimum for procedure, it didn't seem as thorough as many bans have been. Combined with the fact it was on the bare edge of supporting for banning numerically, and I think redoing it more properly is a good idea. 74.124.47.10 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - How many times are we going to re-litigate this matter? The close was a valid, proper assessment of community discussion, especially as measured by strength of arguments, and the outcome was substantively correct. Diffs were presented, both recently and from years earlier, demonstrating consistent battleground behavior and a campaign of harassment, as well as SR's extensive past block/sanction history. This misconduct has gone on for years and years (for just a flavor, see here) and SR has shown no willingness to conform his/her behavior to the community's (generous) norms. I would affirm the community's consensus to ban and move on. Neutrality^talk 16:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, help me to understand, because I really am not able to, how it is "valid" or "proper" to misstate the vote count? Personally I have to think a valid and proper close would get that part right. That would simply not fly at RFA, for example. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt that SashiRolls would pass an RfA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, hard to say given some that have made it. Though standards have gotten a lot tougher compared to the early days. Which may or may not help. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Because, Mr Ernie, discussions are explicitly not a vote count. Why are experienced editors belaboring this supposed vote miscounting when we have a long-standing and unchallenged policy that these are not votes? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, maybe it's because the closing statement explicitly stated that it would be inappropriate to close the discussion as "no consensus" with >2/3 in favor of a ban, yet it wasn't true that >2/3 were in favor of a ban. And the close didn't weigh votes or address any specific diffs, incidents, or arguments. So, maybe that's why people are thinking the close should be re-opened, because it's not a vote. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That.....makes no sense. Your objection is: "The vote count was wrong so we need to count the votes right even though we don't count votes in determining consensus." There is no reason to call for re-opening a discussion on supposed miscounting. WP:NOTDEM:This is no a democracy, the discussion participants were not a jury, due process isn't a thing, and votes don't count. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich's argument is sound. If this was a close based on the weight of the arguments then the closing shouldn't have said >2/3rds at all. It should have instead discussed why the arguments for were stronger than the arguments against. Also, while consensus is NOTAVOTE, the relative proportion of editors for or against something has always had influence on outcomes. Plenty of times we have discussions that explicitly state there are reasonable arguments on both sides thus we consider the number of editors for or against as an indication of the communities relative support for sound, opposing arguments. In this case the closing admin specifically justified "consensus" based on claiming over 2/3rds were in favor. That wasn't true. I get that many feel "consensus" might start at 60% (assuming sound arguments on both sides) but when talking about a CBAN why wouldn't we want to have a higher standard? Would we accept the same weak consensusish result if this were a discussion to strip an admin of their authority? Springee (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 69 users commented in the main banning discussion and SashiRolls made 9 posts. Any light that could have been shed on the topic was. The close was not an abuse of discretion or process and any claims that this should be reopened are just re-litigating the original discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not my objection. My objection is that the close said At a rough count, there were approximately 40 editors supporting a ban and ~18-20 opposed. and that was incorrect. The close also said While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus". That sentence means that this discussion can only be closed as consensus for a ban, because a close of "no consensus" would be inappropriate, because >2/3 of commenters supporting action. Except, that's incorrect. It's not >2/3. Therefore, it's not inappropriate to close this some other way, such as "no consensus", under the closer's own logic. It's not me who's doing the counting, it's the closer. These are the only specific grounds given for the close. He makes no reference to any specific argument made by anyone, or to any specific incident, or to any specific diff, or to any specific policy. He just talks the numbers, and he gets the numbers wrong. Therefore, the close should be un-closed. That's reason #1.

Reason #2 is that 22 comments in the 17 hours prior to the close means it was closed too soon, especially with a swing towards oppose. That's a separate reason from the closing statement to re-open the discussion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I did not participate in the original discussion but think it should be re-opened. Given the flawed analysis and how it was changing just before the close, with El_C's statement, I do not see why it could not of been left open until the weekend. Little copy edits and changes are not the same as having time to go through the evidence and properly respond to it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reopening the discussion. Per SilkTork, the votes were closer to 60% in favor of a site ban, but the thread was new and lively, with the more recent !votes weighing in against a ban. I'd also suggest a multiple-admin close. And in my opinion, the door should not be open to editors who are using WP and !votes only to continue past grievances, but who are essentially retired from building the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 04:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the arguments made at ArbCom relating to finding this to be within the closer's discretion are persuasive. I would decline a second community review for largely the same reasons that ArbCom chose to decline the case. We should not be looking here at whether we agree with the impacts of the close (i.e. whether we agree with the site ban), but rather whether we believe the close was so procedurally unfair that it merits starting from scratch. I do not believe that it does. Best, Darren-M talk 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As K.e.coffman and MrX have described, there is no need for us to reopen the discussion, and this has taken too much community time already. I'd say an appeal in over six months would be a more reasonable path. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per TonyBallioni. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel MastCell’s close was a well reasoned close, it seems evident that he carefully weighed the discussion. There is a consensus that this editor has caused ongoing disruption across many articles for a long time now; that is not to say editing opponents of SashiRolls have not caused some level of disruption too. Further reasons for supporting MastCell’s close was that additional comments to the ban discussion had slowed considerably, the editor in question had made dozens of posts to the discussion so their viewpoint was well known and they were given a fair hearing. Numerically there was clearly a consensus. The party to whom the ban applies, SashiRolls, can always apply for the ban to be partially lifted say, for example, after six to twelve months time. Then if continued improvement with a partial lifting occurs then they could ask for the ban to be fully lifted. This is my view on things anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ... discussion had slowed considerably ... - There were 22 comments in the 17 hours before the close. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • You keep repeating this, and it's really misleading. Of the 22 comments you mention (in the last 17 hours before I closed the discussion), almost none were !votes on the community ban proposal. Virtually all were comments on a "final, we-really-mean-it-this-time" warning or on taking the case to ArbCom. Commentary in support of, or against, a community ban had substantially petered out, after extremely broad input, and the discussion had digressed aimlessly in a few unproductive directions. The warning proposal was clearly not passing, and I left open the option of going to ArbCom (which I explicitly cited in the close and enabled by unblocking SashiRolls). The close was not "premature"; discussion of the community ban had reached a natural stopping point. I don't see any sign that you're going to stop repeating this stuff and bludgeoning everyone, and I'm not going to continue to contest every misleading assertion in this thread, but I would ask other editors to verify for themselves the accuracy of claims rather than simply accepting them through attrition and repetition. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I would argue comments and discussion are just as important as !votes, so not something that can really be discard as unimportant. There is nothing misleading about his factual observation of the momentum of the discussion from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Again, there was virtually no ongoing discussion of the merits of a community ban in those last 17 hours/22 comments, so to cite them as evidence of "momentum" is incorrect. Likewise, harping on the number of edits without addressing their content is, in my view, misleading. MastCell ^Talk 07:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
          • That you don't think discussion about whether to send this to arbcom "counts" for purposes of assessing consensus is probably now Reason #3 why I support overturning. Obviously if an editor thinks it should go to arbcom that means they do not think it should be closed as "consensus to ban". If an editor thinks the site ban discussion is deficient, then that means they don't support closing that discussion as "consensus to ban". That you consider that portion of the discussion to be irrelevant is further evidence that you did not correctly assess consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
            • This is another misleading claim. The discussion about sending the case to ArbCom (in the last 17 hours that the thread was open) comprised people who had already voiced their opinions about the ban itself earlier in the thread. Input from new editors, for purposes of assessing consensus for the ban, had virtually ceased. The thread at that point consisted of an inconclusive back-and-forth, among people who had already commented on the ban, aruging whether to send the case to ArbCom and repeating their previously expressed positions.

              So a) novel input about the merits of the ban had virtually ceased, and b) closing the thread had no bearing on whether or not ArbCom was an option. Thus it seemed like a reasonable time to assess consensus for the ban and to close the thread. On another note, I can't really keep up with this firehose of misleading claims, and I'm pretty sure you're just going to add another one immediately below this, so I'm simply asking that people verify your arguments for themselves rather than taking them on faith or being bludgeoned by their volume. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

              • Oh you're having a hard time keeping up with the volume of comments? I imagine that's how Sashi felt during the ban discussion.
                That you disagree with my opinion doesn't make my opinion "misleading", and I wish you'd stop using that word when you disagree with me. I think that comments, even by editors who have already !voted, still "count" towards whether a discussion is "active" or not. You may disagree with that; neither one of us is being misleading. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
              • @Mastcell: If it gets a bit hot doing all that digging mate, I'll hold yer coat. ——Serial ^# 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
                • My points are that, at the time of closure, a) the thread had attracted substantial community input; b) novel input on the merits of the ban itself had wound down; and c) ongoing activity in the thread consisted of editors reiterating their previously expressed positions and discussing an ArbCom case (on which the closure of the thread had no bearing). Are you disputing any of those points? MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, I agree, I think you acted well within normal limits of discretion, my concern is primarily that this looks, to a lot of people, like a rush to judgment, and that is not a good look. I think it's highly likely that the result of any discussion of any length would be a serious sanction, either a TBAN or a site ban. This is mainly, for me, a question of "justice should be seen to be done". The process here was about as swift as a ban of an obvious troll, and I don't think that SR is an obvious troll. This leaves the door open for endless kvetching - a bit like the drama we see when an obvious Delete AfD is closed five minutes early. Guy (help!) 11:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I would paraphrase these arguments (from you and others) as follows: "the discussion ran for x days, but I think it should have run for y days, even though the outcome would almost certainly have been the same". That's fine, I guess, as long as you recognize that x is no more arbitrary than y. I've explained why I felt the thread was ripe for closure: novel input about the merits of the ban had virtually ceased; nearly 70 editors had participated (meeting or more likely exceeding standard participation for ban discussions); and SashiRolls had defended himself at length. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm obviously partisan here, but I find it troubling that you, Guy, are asking the community to expend this many pixels in order to rehash an outcome that you just said would end up pretty much the same as it originally was. Yes, there are editors who say that they feel that it looked suboptimal. There are also (more) editors who say that this reopened discussion looks suboptimal. And you are doing this in defense of someone who ignored the advice that you, yourself, gave him, and who seems to have said on his user talk page that he is not enthusiastic about continuing the discussion. In the end, you have simply enabled what you just called "endless kvetching". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I have struck my vote and comment above and am switching my vote to support as I decided to read into this much more closely; I have been swayed by some of the comments above, particularly the rationale expressed by Levivich, SilkTork as well as Darouet. While I still believe MastCell’s close was probably correct, there are enough concerns about miscounting of votes/comments and possible premature closure, combined with the fact that most new votes/comments coming in towards the end opposed the ban, that I feel it should be reopened. The final factor that swayed me was that he is a productive editor without disruption in certain topic areas, which leaves me open to the possibility that the community might, in theory, favour a topic ban combined with one way interaction bans.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony. There is nothing out of line with MastCell's closure. If you want to enforce a policy in a manner that is different than what is written, then you should be looking at changing that policy for future instances where something similar happens, which I believe is being done. Even so, changing that will not retroactively apply to this close, so relitigating it is unnecessary. Nihlus 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Guy's concerns regarding consensus and time as well as his reflection: "I don't think this represents our best work as admins". On that latter point, I note that a large fraction of Oppose votes a) consider the close as within discretion and/or b) interpret the ArbCom decision as validating the close. But reasonable (and in my view strong) doubts have been raised re both a) the propriety of that exercise of discretion and b) that interpretation of the ArbCom decision. To impose a severe sanction in view of well-reasoned concerns does not reflect well on WP. A note to those counting votes here: a large fraction of Oppose votes do not allay those concerns but merely reaffirm support of the severe sanction. I also agree with Springee and Rusf10 that, other issues aside, the closer's comments in this discussion do not reflect well on WP. Humanengr (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support per SilkTork and Boing! starship.paint (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Thousands of strange edits to Vietnam geography

Do the edits by 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk · contribs) look familiar to you? I'll notify them, but I'm not going to discuss it with them on their talk page--I have the feeling I'm not going to get an answer. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi, maybe? The pattern of haphazardly moving things around and a fixation on obscure bits of geographical subdivisions fits, and his incarnations regularly change focus (I've seen him hit Mexico, Belarus, and East Timor at different times). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what if there were a few more such accounts, with similar names, making the same kinds of edits? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds about right. See here for one of the more spectacular messes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, you never actually attempted to discuss the problem with me, yet you brought it to the noticeboard and claiming that "I have the feeling I'm not going to get an answer". Does that even make any sense?

If you need an answer, then what I'm doing is creating stubs about locations (mostly about capitals). However, instead of creating a new page, I drafted the article in a redirect and then move it to the correct title. For example, when I created the article about Sóc Sơn, the capital of Sóc Sơn District, I drafted it on Soc Son, which is initially a redirect to Sóc Sơn District and then moved it to the correct title, Sóc Sơn, Hanoi 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The slightly stilted English seems awfully familiar too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 30ChuaPhaiLaTet, let me discuss a couple thousand edits with you on your talk page after you couldn't be bothered to respond to anyone else. Later! Drmies (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what about all these moves? I'm about to add the accounts to the SPI and I rolled back the regular edits, but there's more to do. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If it turns out to be him, we'll have to revert all the moves too; I did this with Eldizzino, that was around 1,500. As an aside, could some tech people please make a mass move revert tool? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, mass move revert tool is really badly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be worth making some noise for it at WP:VPT? It gets annoying to have to spend several days cleaning up the messes Conradi's socks create. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it might help, may be worthwhile opening a topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thread started at WP:VPT#Mass move revert tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a listing for conradi at WP:LTA, maybe I just missed it? Those listings can be helpful to other editors attempting to clean up behind a LTA sockpuppet. Is it worth it to create one? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is worthwhile to create one, especially since TC has a number of characteristic features making them easy to detect.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've scrapped together a script to mass revert moves, but haven't posted it on-wiki due to the potential for abuse. If I should carry out the revert, can I please be granted account creator rights for a bit so that I don't have to deal with the ratelimit? (I'm a global rollbacker, so technically I already have <code>noratelimit</code>, but this doesn't fall in the scope of global rollback) DannyS712 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Going offline for a while - will check back later today. If approved, 24 hours should be long enough to add the rights for DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I also developed a tool for this: User:SD0001/massMoveRevert.js because it seemed like fun. I don't think there's a problem keeping it on-wiki as we already have scripts for mass editing, mass deleting, etc. Any admin can use this (non-admins wouldn't be able to use it due to MediaWiki rate limits, as Danny says). The UI should be self-explanatory. Thanks. SD0001 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just gave it a spin, it took care of the vast majority of them; that was a huge help. It didn't work on a few, am trying to figure out now whether it was just problems with moving things over edited redirects or if they're just pages he moved around multiple times, but this definitely simplified things a ton. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are some 96 pages in Category:Articles with unsynchronized talk page redirects now. These seem to be mostly cases where new artilces about townships were created that formerly redirected to the district of the same name. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and The Blade of the Northern Lights: still 95 pages in Category:Articles with unsynchronized talk page redirects. These are out-of-sync because The Blade of the Northern Lights reverted the talk page moves while the article edits by 30ChuaPhaiLaTet are still standing. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to sort that out, though it may take a little while. Thanks for the ping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done several, but I need to mostly go dark for several hours; if there's still more to do I'll keep at it, any help is appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965

Moved from WP:VPM § Temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965

Hello! An administrator deleted the above-mnetioned article after a discussion some years ago. I need some information from that article for a future article. I would be very grateful if an administrator could temporary restore List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965 for 10 minutes or so. I'll make a copy and transfer the article to my sandbox page. Then he/she must deletete it once more. Thank you very much! --Mbakkel2 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have emailed you a copy of the last version prior to the deletion discussion. Note that if you plan to use any content from this article you are required to attribute the source; a link to the deleted page will suffice. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I mis-read: what you want is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:RUD specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Slightly of topic but would a link to a deleted page suffice for attribution? I thought it wouldn't since the page history and thus the list of contributors is inaccessible for non-admins. --Trialpears (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Attribution to a deleted page is acceptable in cases like this, though obviously not ideal. We do it all the time for "subst-and-delete" TFDs. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes but then we include the list of contributors in the edit summary as documented at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors, right? That's at least how I've been doing it and I would feel quite iffy about just leaving just a redlink for attribution. --Trialpears (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Scroll down a bit to WP:RUD and you'll see you're pretty much spot-on. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why can't we just undelete and move to user or draft space, so all the attribution will exist? I'm not at all convinced that linking to a deleted page satisfies copyright concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal Close request

A non-closed appeal by @Steverci: could use a look at by a non-participating admin. I've copied the archived discussion into a collapsed form below. If anyone instead wants to continue the discussion, please de-collapse it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussion copy

Topic ban appeal Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk) I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc Steverci has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc Steverci is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc Steverci, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC) You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC) *self-trouts* apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk) I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Steverci, those edits you would like to revert are potentially problematic, but they are not Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia's definition. As for the listed articles, they do not provide a good impression of moving beyond the need for a topic ban. Have you considered bold work on areas other than Armenian wars and related? There's a lot of work needed on Armenian articles unrelated to various conflicts. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Nosebagbear specifically asked me for articles related to the topic ban, which includes "broadly constructed" "ethnic conflicts". I'm mostly interested in editing Armenian articles, but also other things. But above I was told that my edits weren't good because they were too safe, so I gave some articles of more potentially contentious subjects, and now you say that it looks bad that I'm appealing the topic ban because I'd like to edit articles related to the topic ban. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Perhaps I misunderstood your opening post then where one of the topics you stated was covered in your topic ban was Armenia as a whole, rather than just conflict-related topics. Can you clarify what you take to be the scope of your current ban? I mentioned the above because dropping a topic ban of Armenia would allow freedom to edit a wide range of articles, without being drawn back to areas that bring higher incidences of editing disputes. Desiring to work in less problematic spaces within existing topic bans can be a reason to remove or reduce a ban. CMD (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Can I clarify the exact TBAN phrasing as indef TBAN from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey - I don't think Steverci is trying to misconstrue or even being careless on it, just for specific discussion in case a narrowed TBAN is considered as an alternative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Narrow TBAN? I'd be willing to narrow the TBAN to conflicts involving one or more of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey or factions within them. I don't know if Steverci has any interest in articles on Armenia/Azerbaijan outside of those areas, so it might be a pointless suggestion. I don't think there's sufficient activity to warrant removing the full TBAN on the truly problematic areas at this point. I'd be happy to say that Steverci can appeal in 3 months (whether the current TBAN is narrowed or not), rather than the usual 6, since that could give a decent editing basis - I haven't spotted any particular problems that warrant a long pause time between each appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I'd be open to either the narrow TBAN or another three months. The former would allow me to clearly demonstrate the TBAN is no longer necessary. For the latter, I'd appreciate if we could define a minimal amount of required edit activity. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with Deepfriedokra here. Tbans are given based on a history of problems. Tbans are lifted based on a history showing there is no longer a problem, and in this case, there isn't enough history to clearly demonstrate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why are you making a third party appeal on an appeal? I participated in that, so can't "adjudicate" it here, but I can't help be curious what the purpose of this post. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked Nosebagbear if his suggestion – for me to be able to appeal again in three months if I demonstrate the addressed concerns are no longer a problem – was the official consensus, since there was no official closing and nobody proposed anything else. --Steverci (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As Steverci says. It also would only be dubious if I was making the original appeal. Asking for a close on an appeal, especially where I've participated is fine. Nosebagbear (talk)

I think that if I were to close that discussion, I'd do so by saying that there is no consensus to lift or narrow the TBAN - I can't see how this appeal could be closed successfully at present. If I were to contribute to the discussion, I'd say that while Steverci has made some useful contributions since coming back (and I thank them for that), making 150-or-so gnomish edits to historical biographies doesn't give us a huge amount to go on in terms of judging whether or not they have developed their ability to work collaboratively in contentious areas. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think that's certainly legitimate, and also appears to be Steverci's interpretation (at least in the sense he didn't ask for a close with a narrowed TBAN, but instead a tweaked time before the next appeal). Do you think it's legitimate for a 3 month time to be used here - if it doesn't get formally closed, then any reasonable pause before rediscussing it seems to meet the spirit of the rules. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, since this wasn't closed either way, I'd say that there isn't a formal restriction on how long they should wait until appealing again. I wouldn't advise them to do it immediately - rather, I'd suggest that they keep editing and build up a good track record showing that they can collaborate well, so that we've got something to go on. Three months of active editing and positive interactions with others (especially people they disagree with) would probably be fine; six months of occasional solitary gnoming probably wouldn't be enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is good advice, I would recommend to @Steverci: to follow it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what Girth said. Good advise, and I agree that a non-closed appeal doesn't put a time limit on the next, although waiting is obviously wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The KKK took my baby away

So, Nathan Bedford Forrest is best known as a Confederate general, a mass-murderer of African-American soldiers who tried to surrender, and a racist cult leader (I'm sorry, "Grand Wizard") of the KKK. Even in Selma they removed his bust a couple of years ago, though the DoC (a hate group) and the FoF ("Friends of Forrest", haha) replaced it. Anyway, what do we think of the user name "NathanBedfordForrest1"? Is it impersonation of a famous person? Is NBF at the level of A. Hitler yet? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp, we could look at their edits to see if there is some sort of NOTHERE or POINT behavior. Have we tried discussion of user's nom de plume? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the user's edits and they appear to be here in good faith. I would similarly suggest discussing the issue with them and giving them instructions on how to request a rename. I think it's definitely not within the spirit of our user name policy, but given they haven't shown any bad faith so far I think it's worth just asking them to choose a different name. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Selma is not far up the road from me: I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone would pick that username in this day and age--in other words, I'd ask them and go "hey did you know that you picked the name of a mass-murdering slave-owning racist", but you know, what's the point. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There are bad people on both sides? I tend to doubt this is a coincidental name. Clearly offensive and must be changed. Didn't add to WP:UAA as I see Deepfriedokra is here. Okra cures all ills. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Should have run CU earlier. Widr, you blocked the range they're on for two years, last year, but you're not a CU, I don't think so this means very little, maybe. AmandaNP, you ran CU on the range a few days ago, saying "Obvious not new, disruptively attempting to "fix" things", and on that range, where I don't recognize anyone, there's a few odd users and odd interactions. Can you have a look? Drmies (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User now says they'll abandon the account. Still should be blocked. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's the Incorrigible Troll / Starship9000 person, and have blocked accordingly (compare Special:Contributions/IluvRobertELee). I therefore also have these suspicions about the check AmandaNP did, which is another now-abandoned account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. You have my vote, if jerk catcher ever becomes an elected position. Please consider the range also, and that one IP--and did this person ever do anything useful? Cause there's a few accounts in there, one of which should a great interest in the modern display of the ole rebel rag. Thx, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I think. I've taken those actions I've observed to be appropriate at this time, knowing that will never stop anyone else doing anything further, though I accept it is not everything. Also self-confession. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing

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 we site ban Wikiprofessionals, a paid-editing ring, from the project? ——Serial ^# 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• A more comprehensive analysis can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#wikiprofessionals inc. Sockpuppet investigations are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook/Archive

On WP:COIN, we have discovered a paid editing firm known as Wikiprofessionals Inc. The firm dates back to the early 2010s, and is suspected of creating multiple articles. This is a list of what articles Wikiprofessionals is suspected of creating:

Claimed by company

• Wissam Al Mana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gaby Natale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David F. D'Alessandro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shaherose Charania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• James D. Marks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pete Flint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Linx Cargo Care Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Standard Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Odibets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• XING Mobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Russell McVeagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (created too early for this company, but subject to substantial promotional SPA editing thereafter)
• Delivery Hero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BATS Chi-X Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (created too early for this company, but subject to substantial promotional SPA editing thereafter)
• Brown & Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TheBlaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Firefly Aerospace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Day Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pedego Electric Bikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neil Young (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More created by the editor who created Neil Young (video game executive)

• Brian Farrell (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Frank Gibeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aaron Loeb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kevin Chou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Schiermeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mike Verdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roger Dickey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bill Jackson (video game designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paul Bettner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Schappert (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mark Skaggs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I, along with Bri and BD2412, support a site ban for Wikiprofessionals and their related accounts. We do not want another Wiki-PR and Orangemoody on our hands. Personally, I just think that paid editing firms are unethical and goes against Wikipedia's mission. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 23:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support. The firm is actually (we think) "Get Wikified" but has a habit of spinning off different brand names, over two dozen of which are listed at WP:PAIDLIST#Get Wikified. PAIDLIST also documents several OTRS tickets related to their drumming up article-creation business (pretending to represent Wikipedia officially) that was later reported to the WP community. As far as I know there is not a single editor with proper paid disclosure related to this group. You can find more background/documentation at this COIN thread (2019) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this one have the same quotes of get wikified on their web site The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Clear and deliberate breach of a range of our policies, most notably WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Note that an WP:SPI investigation has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop. BD2412 T 00:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am ambivalent about deletion, as some of the articles created have been substantially de-puffed by intervening editors, but I would definitely support moving them to draftspace with a note about their questionable origin for a thorough scouring before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a site ban as a blot on Wikipedia. Should the articles included in the list above be (speedy) deleted? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of the listed articles. Listing each at AfD would be yet more community time dedicated to these bad-faith editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and (reluctantly) deletion - we have to teach a lesson to customers as well as spammers: hire the scum and see the "article" deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and deletion per WP:TNT. If any of the subjects they made articles about are notable, they can be recreated with no credit to them whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not clear how a site ban against the company as a whole would be effective in practice - we clearly can't innately know who is editing on their behalf. We would already block repeated violations of WP:PAID anyway. I have no qualms with us levying a site ban against individual editors for this, but banning the organisation seems symbolic and ultimately futile. I'm also opposed to mass deletion - let's work through articles and assess against usual standards instead rather than going nuclear. Best, Darren-M talk 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  It isn't just a matter of bookkeeping - Banning a user means that their edits can be reverted/deleted on sight once it is clear they're another wikiprofessionals/Get Wikified mercenary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The only way we're likely to know that they're a member of the organisation is if they disclose per PAID, in which case they're then being sanctioned for abiding by the policy that the organisation was banned for breaching. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Banning the organisation will just encourage them to continue editing in a clandestine way. Darren-M talk 01:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment 2 points. 1) Perhaps would've been worth waiting until after the SPI to make this, since there's possibly (probably?) other accounts we're unaware of, since we only got this list from one source. So, if we get more accounts (hence articles) due to a CU check those should probably be added to this. 2) I'm not sure how I feel about mass-deleting these pages, many of which are noteworthy and some not too promo, but if mass-deletion encourages these companies/people to chargeback the company, perhaps the company will abide by WP:PAID next time, so perhaps it's the greater good. Not sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion - If they never cared enough to abide by the Terms of Use and disclose and did everything in their power to stay under the radar, then they're not someone we want around. There is a right way and a wrong way to be a mercenary on Wikipedia, and if you insist on the wrong way then we're not obligated to host your trash. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• If these are established articles that other editors have worked on, policy pretty much prevents us from deleting them en masse. They can be cleaned up and if they aren't notable, sent to AFD, but deleting all of them isn't really kosher unless you go through them one by one and determine if they are valid articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also note that there are some articles which this company has claimed to have created which they clearly did not (including articles that preceded their apparent existence and created by well-established editors). The articles that we have identified are those that are claimed by the company as their own, and that were created by obvious SPAs that typically were only active for a few months, at most. There is a slim possibility that some articles so identified are still innocent, so some further review is warranted prior to deletion. BD2412 T 01:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Undisclosed paid editing and persistent abuse clearly warrants a ban. Regarding deletion, moral support but that should probably be a separate proposal laying out the individual or group basis for including articles in the list or other relevant points. I haven't looked at the individual articles and I think we'd want a bit more detail and examination before spamming the delete button. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Any of these articles that seems to merit deletion can go to AfD. I notice that James D. Marks is there already. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and draftifying - The onus is against these articles, so send them to draftspace, where they can worked on and moved back into articlespace if warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• After looking through a bunch of these, I'm changing my !vote to Support and delete. Editors wanting specific articles to be undeleted can use WP:REFUND and explain why. Just as with sockpuppetry or site-banned editors, it's important that undisclosed paid editors not see their dishonesty rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I added some other articles in case of draftification; some are G5/G11 noms already ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: there is nothing CU can do here. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support a ban here. I support banning all commercial editing. I’ll add on to what Drmies said above CheckUser is rarely useful against paid editing these days for a few reasons. Admins should block under WP:NOTSPAM when they see it and not wait on CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ban and deletion I support to ban all of the users and to delete all of their pages. If there are any pages that are actually worth keeping, we could refund it (and try give no credit for the company due to their dishonest moves). Note: The company(on their Q&A) acknowledge this policy but calls Ignore all rules a loophole for the whole COI thing(obviously not)The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should run a CU also. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 05:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ban, delete, do not pass go, do not violate WP:COI. Per BMK, anyone who wants to take responsibility for improving work produced by TOS violators can ask for undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - ban, delete blatant promo, others send to draft or userfy - nope, not good for our volunteer spirit, the project or our reputation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC) ^{On 2nd thought, I clarified. 13:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)}
• Site ban, but not a fan of deletion. If you think an article should be removed, send it to AFD. (For example, Firefly_Aerospace looks fairly reasonable after multiple editors-worth of rework.) --Izno (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion per above. "Hire UPE, get your article deleted." Sending the articles to AFD puts the burden on volunteer time. Editors are more important than pages: we shouldn't ask our volunteers to review the work of UPE. Just delete it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I only support deleting the articles we know were the work of UPE; I have no idea if the specific articles on the above list are all eligible or not, or if there are others that aren't on the list. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I work for this company Support duh Naleksuh (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban and delete. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Of Frank Gibeau (among the list above), we don't learn much; but we do learn that "Gibeau's 2016 compensation as Zynga's CEO was $24.5 million." So there could be quite a lot of moola sloshing around this vanity article racket. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletion per above. The way to restore the asymmetry in our favour is that we take such action whenever we discover UPE – E.g. despite paying your money, your PAID article has to evade detection every day until the end of time, whereas Wikipedia only needs be lucky on one of those days and your article is gone. Britishfinance (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should also automatically WP:SALT every article that has been deleted as WP:PAID, which would increase the asymetry even further, and head-off the legion of 50-edit new editors that instantly re-apppear to re-create these deleted articles (normal editors can apply to get them released). Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and deletion per Levivich. AFD is also risky - it is not uncommon to see ads on freelancing websites for keep votes at AFD. It is also not uncommon to see socks show up to get spam pages retained at AFD too. MER-C 08:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• @SuperGoose007: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I've boldly added a short statement which should be picked up by the bot, does that work? Of course, SuperGoose007 should feel free to change/ re-sign it when they're back. ——Serial ^# 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you It looks fine; we'll find out for sure at 10:01 (UTC) - when Legobot next updates WP:RFC/POLICY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban/ deletion per Thomson/ Levivich. To coin a phrase, since this material is clearly contentious, it seems only fair that the onus be on those wishing to keep the contested material in mainspace. ——Serial ^# 09:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban, and deletion where no other editor has participated significantly - there might have been a benefit in a broader CU-op on the accounts (a la OM) before coming here, but in any case, a ban seems reasonable. I'm also increasingly thinking that we should consider any known director of a banned UPE company as "carrying" that status to any new organisation. I've backed a CSD criteria in the past for clearly badfaith UPE (that is, where a username is the company name, I'm okay to let them disclose if they do so on demand rather than insta-CSDing), so long as no other editor has participated significantly. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site-ban and deletion. We can't keep content created in violation of the Terms of Use, regardless of whether others have edited it or whether the topic is notable – the TOU take precedence over any other consideration. We urgently need to establish a process for immediate removal/deletion of all WP:UPE, just as we unquestioningly remove or delete copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps WP:IAR should be amended to note that the Terms of Use do in fact override. It is "ignore all rules" that this firm was using as their raison d'être. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Which, if they'd bothered to read IAR, they would have realised that isn't how it works. Writing blatantly promotional material and editing sans disclosure are disruptive, whereas IAR only applies to actions that would benefit the encyclopaedia if not for the rules. And even then, IAR does not override Foundation-derived policy or the ToU. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support site-ban, deletion and salting as default provided the evidence that the article was created in violation of terms of use is good on balance of probability, but if anyone wants to nominate specific articles for draftification which they are willing to decontaminate, that would be OK. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support bans and deletions. I agree entirely with Levivich: sending the articles to AFD puts the burden on volunteer time. Compare Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free and don't ask our volunteers to review UPE work. Since the company has apparently falsely claimed some articles as theirs, review is warranted (were they created by SPAs typically only active for a short time? Delete!), but AFD is not. Deletion will surely be a stronger strike against UPE editing than bans of long since inactive SPAs. (I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned; they should.) How hard will it be for the individuals involved to create new accounts and write new articles? Incredibly easy, considering how soon CU evidence goes stale. (I won't say how soon, because WP:BEANS.) Bishonen | tålk 12:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC).
• Procedural/administrative question: are we sure that all of these pages were created for pay? I remember when WikiWhateverIt'sCalled started advertising their services, and we found they were claiming TONS of pages that were likely not written by them. Haven't looked at the pages, but it's a concern when I see so many people clamoring to immediately delete with no review (and yes, I know there is also a group saying that only those pages that haven't been edited, which is better). Primefac (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  They did claim a bunch of pages which they didn't create (see COIN discussion), but those were omitted here. I believe the above list are the pages from the list on their site which turned out to be created by SPAs. Though this isn't certainty that they were created for pay (or, even if they were for pay, that it was this company which created them), but it's probably the closest we can get to certainty given their opsec. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of striking out one which was created in 2007. It may have later experienced UPE which we can just revert or edit out. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Bri: Whether or not BATS Chi-X Europe was created by this company, it has a long history of SPA edits, and certainly bears scrutiny. BD2412 T 17:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support bans and deletions No. Just no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support bans but review the articles before deleting them. Wikipedia needs to vigorously defend itself from being used as an advertising billboard, so the offending spammers have to be shown the door. The articles shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt but I'd prefer them to be given at least a quick appraisal before being deleted. Reyk _YO! 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban but oppose deletion without review. I went through that list and recognised one of them as a major NZ law firm who were recently in the news a lot. This in itself doesn't mean much but if this paid editing firm dates back to the early 2010s, can someone explain to me how they created an article on 2006 [31]? The creator was active for that short time and disappeared Special:Contributions/Lawgeek18, so the possibility of it being paid can't be easily ruled out but it illustrates the problem with deleting articles just because someone has claimed they were created for pay without evidence. Either they've been around for a lot longer then early 2010s or they weren't the creator. Even looking at the major edits after creation, I see [32] from 2008 and [33] from 2013 by the same editor which whatever their flaws, look to be an editor with a genuine interest in NZ law etc over a long period of time Special:Contributions/Sammy2008, i.e. not likely someone who was part of the paid editing farm. Special:Contributions/Tessatelle contributions in 2017 look questionable [34] [35] except they seem to have been mostly rejected by User:Drmies anyway [36] [37]. This [38] which is by an editor Special:Contributions/MarkoMetal who does seem to be associated with the paid editing farm (I'm assuming from the block log) which is interesting since it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing the law firm would pay for. It could be a competitor, but I wonder if more likely it was content added to try and seem like an innocuous editor. I guess an additional possibility is they recognised that there was no way that the content could not be covered in our article, and so tried to get ahead of good faith editors by adding a section but keeping it as mundane as possible. That section has undergone major changes and IMO it would be weird not to cover it (it was a big deal in NZ). Still, I can perhaps see people arguing for deletion of even the current version of that section for complete recreation by someone who isn't violating the ToU. But the whole article? Finally I see [39] which seems to be from a public library in the Lower Hutt library system [40], IMO it's unlikely it's from a paid editing farm. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Has wikiprofessionalsinc even claimed all those articles? I looked at the 'portfolio' on their website, I don't see where they say they created those articles. Whether they created them, worked on them, whatever seems unclear from the website. I looked at the chat, and I don't see whey they said they created all those articles they listed on their website. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: My review of their claimed articles was not aimed at determining whether they were created for pay, but whether there was evidence that they were subject to COI editing. That said, almost all of the articles on the list were created by SPAs doing clearly promotional work. Of course, there were also some articles "claimed" by them which were created much earlier by established Wikipedians and with no indication of COI editing at any point along the way. In examining the claimed articles, I erred on the side of suspicion. BD2412 T 17:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Wait what? That mean's if an article was created earlier by established Wikipedians with indication of COI editing after creation they are in the list? Only articles created by established Wikipedians with no indication of COI editing are saved? That's even worse. At first I thought this list had no review. Then I look more carefully and find there was review, although as I said, at least with the Russell McVeagh, the creation has a question mark even if it's well before the claimed time frame and at least some of the major contributors don't seem to be associated with the paid editing farm, and of the only editor clearly associated with the paid farm added negative information. The proposal here is to delete all the articles listed. WTF would we deleted articles created by established Wikipedians just because some fuckhead paid editor edited at one point of time? Delete the fucking COI editing. Don't delete the work of the established Wikipedians! Even in cases of copyvio problems, surely far more serious, we may delete any contributions after the copyvio was added including from editors acting in good faith because we can't hope to recover the non copyvio from the copyvio. But if there is a version before the copyvio, we revert to that. Sorry I find this so disgusting I don't think I'll be participating further. Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (EC) I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. (This was before I read the above reply, as I said there, I won't be participating further.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban and delete every contribution - Wikipedia is not a PR tool and violating our policies on such a large scale is irredeemable. - MrX 🖋 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose if there is confirmed UPE I would support a ban and deletion, but these are probably not their articles and accounts. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, if there isn't UPE then this is Orangemoody redux, as we already know they're loosey-goosey with the facts and have claimed credit for pages that others have worked on. Either they're mercenaries or they're scammers; either way they should be excluded. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 18:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support site ban. HOWEVER: we really have no proof, as far as I can see, if any of the stated accounts or edits or articles are theirs. We should review articles for UPE and notability as per usual.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban and deletion of articles created by them I appreciate that that will delete pages of notable companies and individuals but the best remedy to combat this kind of behaviour is to be staunch and nuke the lot. It gets more complex when they added to articles created by legitimate users. In that case, I suggest we revision delete up to the point prior to their involvement. Schwede66 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That would only hold if no-one had made a single substantive edit at any stage during or after their edits. I am against acting on articles not created by them, it's just asking for issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and delete Unchecked abuse just encourages more abuse. Sensor1776 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions. I don't like deleting articles that might have some value, especially if other editors have improved them. But when we see this kind of insidious abuse of Wikipedia policy and of basic ethics, we need to send the strongest message we can and try to attack these people where it hurts most - in the wallet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban and delete Unchecked abuse just encourages more abuse. Sensor1776 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ban, but we cannot delete work to which good faith editors have substantially contributed on the basis of G5. And we cannot delete as contrary to the claims of serice unless we have evidence thatit actually is. It's common for undeclared paid editors to claim credit forwork they have not done. Usually they do this to buildup an impresive but false resume, but sometimes it's to harass competitors.. The way yo deal with bad articles on nonnotable people is to delete them. The way to do with hopelessly promotional articles that could not be rewritten if usually to delete them as G11, but the much better way if the person or organization is really so important that readers would expect to find an article is to stubbigy or merge or redirect. We should not use afch, because far too many articles sent there never get fixed; subiffying or merging, the original methods, at least provide some information for the readers while a proper article is writtten by a good faith editor. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As a longer range solution, it seems that these bad faith promotional editors seem to be able to convince reasonably respectable companies and people, including acadeics who should know better, that their paid editing will be acceptable; this is to a considerable degree because of our comoplicated rules, by which some paid editing if declared according to the correct technicalities declared is acceptable. We can fix this ourselves, without the WPF; we can fix this simply and immediately, by resolving that 'No paid editing shalll ever be permitted on the enWP. . We have the right to make requirements for enWP beyond the WMF's TOU. If other language WPs wish to follow us, that's their look out. (to be fair, there will be a number of problwms, such as dealing with existing articles, and improving requests for articles and requests for changes. (I have no personal animus against declared paid editors as people--at least two are personal friends, and I think both of them recognize their practices are not really defensible) DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No paid editing shalll [sic] ever be permitted on the enWP seems a little extreme. We have some (from personal encounters, two) editors who have followed the rules as is and have disclosed their paid relationship with clients, as well as refrained from editing the articles themselves, confining their suggestions as edit requests on the talk page. The point that should be stressed is that undisclosed paid editing shall never be permitted on the enWP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ban, Delete, Snow. Zero tolerance for UPE. Cabayi (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions. According to their FAQ page (Internet Archive: 20200712120055, "wikiprofessionalsinc" .com, subpage "faqs"), their justification for policy violations is using WP:IAR as a "loophole". They "absolutely" "guarantee acceptance of the article to Wikipedia", stating that "there is no doubt that it will be accepted". We should change this, indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and deletions - Paid editing like this should not be tolerated on this website, If these articles are found to be notable they can be recreated by neutral editors, Deleting these would show we're serious and that paid editing like this won't be tolerated here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban, deletion and salting of articles created by these accounts: As Britishfinance suggests above, there is a need to establish asymmetry such that the consequences are worse than neutral for a firm's clients. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Neutral, at the moment, on deletion. Many of these articles appear to be the kind of corporate cruft we could do without and never miss. However, TheBlaze (later moved to Blaze Media), Delivery Hero, and Russell McVeagh contain information that is in the public interest (political alignment of a media outlet, controversies over labor practices, and sexual-assault allegations respectively). XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Adding my 2c after some thought. Support site ban. If we're banning accounts, some of these are not obviously connected, so those should be avoided. Support deletion if the articles have not been substantially contributed to by editors in good standing, and if deleting the articles wouldn't cause wasted effort (eg some articles, like Delivery Hero, we'd just have to create again immediately, waste of time deleting it). For those articles that are kept under this criteria, add {{upe}} badge of shame. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support ban and I believe that the articles can be quickly sorted into those that have not had a substantial edit from other editors (which can be deleted right away) and others that can be dealt with in the usual ways. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban (and request a global ban). While I personally support deleting all their spam, I would note that the idea of speedy deletion of undisaclosed paid spam in violation of Terms of Use has been repeatedly rejected at WT:CSD. Because, I guess, we desperately need new spam articles or something? Guy (help!) 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  JzG did you mean to add this in the section above? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support ban; Oppose blanket deletion. The articles should be deleted if and only if they meet our deletion criteria. Some doubtless will, others won't. I clicked on 3 of the articles about companies at random. Linx Cargo Care has 4000 employees and is owned by major institutional investors; Delivery Hero is publicly traded, has 18000 employees (supposedly) and runs many well-known food delivery brands worldwide; Day Software was formerly public, now owned by Adobe. None of this is prima facie evidence of notability, but it makes it very plausible at least some of these companies (and perhaps the other articles - haven't checked) have enough 3rd party coverage for an article, or at worst should be redirected not nuked. Therefore, no objection to zapping any and all that do specifically meet our deletion criteria, but no to automatic delection as a shortcut or "punishment". BTW, we've been down this road before, where 15 years ago (+-) we nearly nuked Arch Coal since its initial version was written by a spammer. Martinp (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Note about CheckUser and paid editing

I'm writing this just as myself and without having consulted the team, but as there are several people asking for CheckUser above, I think it is worth giving a longer explanation of changes in behaviour here over time. As a bit of background, I've been involved with paid stuff from an SPI angle since at least early 2017, which was before I was an admin. I continued to help in the area as a sysop, and initially was fairly involved as a CU with paid cases.

In the 3.5 year timeframe I mention, we have seen a pretty large shift in how the paid editing model works. Previously we would regularly see fairly large sockfarms of 10, 15, 20, 30 plus accounts. These invariably were operating on VPNs, and given the degree of coordination and the technical details of some of them, they were likely in the same physical location, either being coworkers or the same person.

In 2018 and 2019 User:SQL and myself started a project that for the most part blocked the overwhelming majority of commercially available VPNs from en.wiki. User:Jon Kolbert, after his election as a steward, began a similar project on a global scale, and earlier this year, ST47 created a bot that targeted other types of open proxies on en.wiki. The combined result of these efforts is that while possible, it is difficult for a commercial operation to maintain a profitable sockfarm by relying on VPNs.

Over 2018 and 2019 as the impact of these blocks began to manifest, there was actually a sharp decline in the number of large sockfarms for paid editing. What instead became apparent from the technical and behavioural data was a few things:

1. Different people were writing the same commissioned articles
2. The people were unlikely to be working in collaboration with one another
3. The majority of spam we were seeing was coming from freelancers, not marketing firms

I can think of a specific case where we know for a fact that the individual who was commissioned to write the article was living in North America, but where the accounts involved in its creation were operating from two different cities on another continent. These were white-label products being farmed out to individual people. When there are multiple people in multiple locations showing up, CheckUser is going to show them as  Unrelated because they are.

I'm saying all this because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in the community of how these organizations currently work. Risker did a lot of work with the Orangemoody investigation, and can speak to how it was then, but the type of commercial editing we're seeing today has a very different model from Orangemoody. I see Ivanvector has commented at SPI against fishing in a case, and Drmies above has already indicated that CU can't do much. I'll send a note to checkuser-l in case there is anyone else from the team who wants to comment here on what they have seen, but I think that the community should be aware of what our limits are in terms of effectiveness. We'll look at cases where there appears to be socking, but our time is one of our most valuable assets, and trying to figure out if two different freelancers are the same person usually isn't that useful. Especially in the time of COVID, where even if they work for the same firm, they're probably on their home wifi and won't show up related.

Administrators should block spam as they see it and not wait for CU if it is obviously a violation of our core content policies. We relied on CU for a long time to help deal with paid editing, but it is becoming less useful now as our other tools to fight against the mass paid farms have worked extremely well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Let’s talk about how admins can block spam when they see it. Suspected spammers, or only after they confess or have a WP:DUCK outcome at SPI? Draftify or delete? Tony, this is not a criticism of you; you have done and continue to do a good job of policing this area. But I think we are in a bit of a limbo wrt proper procedures for well intentioned admins. Is there an admin field guide to a) identifying actionable material and b) what to do once it is positively identified? You made a very good case for not depending on checkuser for (a), but now what? It is very frustrating for all concerned to file what feels like a solid SPI report only to have it returned as "too late for cu" or whatever. And an SPI "warrant" is really the key to g5 else the whole system grinds to a stop under the weight of the full blown AfD process times tens to hundreds of bad-faith article creations. This RfC is certainly a special case, we can’t sustain a community ban for every entity on WP:PAIDLIST. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bri, no need to worry about offending me. We've worked closely together in the past on this stuff and I still really value the work of people at COIN even though I'm less involved there than I used to be. My motivation for posting this is that while we've discussed this as a CU team on calls and trainings, I don't think it really has been communicated as well to the community, so I want to be clear what they can expect from us.

In terms of how admins can handle it, my thought process would be something like this: is an account clearly creating promotional content? If yes, have they created content elsewhere on the project? If the answer to that is no, they're a spam-only account and they should be blocked. Our policy is not "you can spam unless you sock" it is "you cannot create promotional content." If the content isn't bad enough for G11, it can be dealt with after the block by PROD or AfD by other uninvolved editors at COIN or ANI. When I'm going through SPI and I get to a case where it is clearly just two freelancers, I block them both as a regular admin action for promotion.

We've done a pretty good job at decreasing these large farms, and we're now at a level where a bunch on lone wolfs and white-label writers are trying to make a buck. That's a lot easier to be dealt with effectively at the regular admin level without functionary involvement if its clear what is going on from the edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

as a checkUser myself, although not a very active one, I agree with Tony. There's usually no need for a check. Promotional editing is clear enough on the face of it. Specific undeclared paid editors are often clear enough, wihtout checkuser, and the way they work , usually makes the additional information from checkuser not really necessary or worth the trouble.At present, if there's really as case of private information or doxing or impersonation, I think the sipler course is to invovle arb com directly. Back 3 years ago, arb com was less willing to get invovkled , so therere was a reason for using checkusers instead. That is no longer the case. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that while I agree with the message Tony is delivering, it is definitely sometimes still useful to run a checkuser, as we can often pick up large farms of socks and articles. I's still quite common to come across large UPE farms through checkuser. It's difficult for a non-CU to distinguish between a freelancer meat farm and a paid sock farm, I appreciate that. Sometimes - perhaps often - a CU will say that nothing can be done, or they won't look for whatever reason. But sometimes something can be done. So as Tony says, don't necessarily wait for a CU, but also definitely don't afraid from requesting one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been said. In response to the ping: I declined that case because we're required by policy to see justification for a check before using the tool; I don't see it but offered that I would take another look if a more concise case could be made. With respect, I think that the filer doesn't understand SPI very well: for one, of the 29 accounts listed, only three can actually be checked. Several that cannot are already related to other investigations which were certainly not involved in paid editing, which indicates to me that the filer has not really investigated and is counting on the CU to do it for them, and that's not our role (as I had said, checkuser is not for fishing, and I hadn't said it but the clerks' job is not to make your case for you, though they often do comment on evidence and/or dig up their own).

I may be quicker than some to decline investigations ported from COIN, for the reasons TonyBallioni suggests, that we're unlikely to find anything useful for a COIN investigation. COIN investigates multiple accounts working together commercially, while SPI investigates multiple accounts operated by one person: CU tools really can't do anything else. We've been advised recently that "suspicion of paid editing" is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for checking, and I tend to agree. There can be overlap between COIN and SPI, and like zzuuzz says we can sometimes uncover large operations when they're technically related (but as Tony says they're more often not these days), but we need to see valid suspicion of sockpuppetry supported by evidence before we can check. That's the rules we're given. All that said, and despite Arbcom being more assertive about compliance in the last year or so, that bar is still pretty low honestly.

As for what can "regular" admins do to counter paid editing? Advocate for stronger policies against it. We're evidently still relying on these paid operations to do something else wrong (like sockpuppetry) before they can be blocked. That strongly indicates (to me) that our policies against this activity don't go far enough. I don't have suggestions to offer in this regard, just commentary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Range blocks work well on some ISPs. Depends on the ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Just in regards to Tony's comments above, one of the things I've been noticing recently - especially in regards to sites like Freelancer - is that a large portion (and posisbly a majority) of paid editing jobs are being subcontracted to other paid editors once someone is hired, with a preference towards people who do not have a history of socking. I recently was curious about the extent of this and started mapping the relationships between paid editors on Freelancer, but we're looking at situations ranging from people who are regularly hired but always subcontracted, to people who subcontract 10-30% of their work, and of the major paid-editing accounts I could identify well over half were subcontracting in some fashion. This would create CU problems, because even if you know which sockmaster was originally hired to perform the task, it could be a completely different farm (or not a farm at all) that then does the job. This isn't insurmountable from a DUCK perspective, but does damage the effectiveness of CU. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, yes, that’s what I’m getting at. As I mentioned above, I can think of one case where Freelancer or Upwork, etc. confirmed the identity of the person and that they were in North America. The accounts that created the article(s) they had been hired to create were from two distinct locations using two different devices on legitimate ISPs on a different continent than North America. The Upwork person had subbed the work out white-label. In cases like this, CU isn’t going to help you, and I agree that subcontracting is likely the majority practice these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is close to being the majority practice of Freelancer. I was suprprised just how often I'd see a FFreelancer have reviews from other Freelancers whom I know are doing paid WP work. Not only does it help avoid CU, but it hides the job, as the subcontractor just hires someone for "wikipedia editing" without specifying what the work is for, even if the original advertisement was more specific. (Although duck blocks based on original job remain viable). In the case of Upwork there are fewer clear cases of subcontracting from other freelancers as it is against their ToU, but there is a much higher percentage of subcontracting from companies such as Wikiprofessionals Inc. Just looking quickly today, in the last 48 hours 1/5 of WP editing ads on Upwork are very likely to be subcontracting, but the problem is less about number of ads as the number of separate jobs each ad can represent. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you TonyBallioni and Bilby for these details, they're very informative and do inform on what is most useful. This would need to be a separate discussion, but it's probably also worthwhile having a discussion on other potential methods (such as fr-wiki's use of "fake buyers", which I suggest we'd want community sign-off and a degree of ARBCOM oversight, were we to go that route). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Ivanvector: both suggest that a change in policy could help here (Tony's was way above, saying that he supports banning all commercial editing). I've had some mixed feelings on this. Often it seems that we have the policies, it's just that they aren't enforced. Other times it seems like we have people willing to enforce the policies, but it seems like there is a glitch in the way many people interpret the policy. I suppose we should just take one step at a time, whichever will be more effective at the time. Coming up with a new policy on Commercial editing would probably be effective now. So all we need to do is define commercial editing, ban it, make it easy to enforce. I will suggest that we leave WP:Paid editing disclosure alone - since it is part of the ToU it has special status and is very difficult to revoke. If we were to go through the complete process to change the disclosure process, the resulting policy would be weaker (easier to change) than the combination of the current disclosure policy plus a new policy on commercial editing. This is not the best place to discuss a new policy - can somebody suggest the best place to take this? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I’d support a ban on commercial editing and specifically phrase it that way so that the “What about WiRs/WMF employees” strawman doesn’t derail the discussion like it does every time any policy change in this area is discussed. Something I disagree with Ivanvector on to an extent is that we need some sort of change to work effectively now: spam-only account is a valid reason for a block. Always has been. Admins have just been trained to go the SPI route post-Orangemoody since for a while the biggest threat were these massive sockfarms. Admins can apply existing policy more liberally than they are today and have a big impact without requiring something like a commercial editing ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that promotional editing is probably the biggest issue facing enwiki today. Given my druthers, I'd be a lot more free with WP:G11 than I am, but I try to hew to the community opinion, which seems to be a lot more accepting of this, especially in draft space. The past year or so, I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing drafts at WP:AfC. Left to my own devices, I'd G11 90% of what comes through there, but I figure if I did that, I'd find myself on the wrong end of an Arbcom case. I'd be more than happy to see an RfC that put some teeth into our WP:COI policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the current policies are not stopping the problem. The question, then, is if progressivly tougher policies will change anything? The people we are talking about are already banned and will already have their content removed on sight. It makes no difference. I do think we need to have a discussion about solutions, and the WMF needs to be invovled, but if we're really serious about the problem the solution is unlikely to be in hardening policies that don't make a difference anyway. We need to work out better methods of detecting paid editing, better means of stopping the ads, or better means of removing the demand. If we achieved that we'd either be able to enforce the policies we have or we would have less need to enforce them. - Bilby (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree that spam is currently our biggest problem and have the numbers to back it up. I swing the banhammer at everyone I suspect of UPE and shove their articles into draftspace because sending them to AFD is too laborious and risky (of being kept, either by spammer intervention, default or, rarely, because they are actually notable). My experience is similar to TonyBallioni and Bilby - I don't bother with SPI unless I know it will be useful, which isn't very often. That said, I rolled up a 25 article spam sock farm because they used the same tactics last week. I welcome any constructive RFC that either enhances COI, PAID, increases the notability threshold (especially for sportspeople, or maybe propagating the enhanced CORP sourcing to living people to enhance sourcing for spam-prone occupations) or otherwise make it harder for spammers to spam.

But what's missing here is measures to reduce demand for spamming services. This is particularly hard, given that PR is valued in the corporate world. MER-C 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking along the same lines. There are so many ads from people seeking a WP page so that they can be verified on Instgram, or to help their career as a minor speaker/hypnotist/author/colsultant/surgeon/whatever, that if we killed the possibility of these minor articles we'd make a huge difference. Only then we'd need to delete a lot of existing articles. - Bilby (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing we can do is to set up a venue like Wikipedia:Copyright problems but for UPE. After seven days, if there is no rewrite by a legitimate editor and there is credible suspicion of UPE the suspected text or the entire article can be deleted at the discretion of the closing administrator (regardless of notability). The spammer can't remove the tag (unlike PROD) and there is less overhead than AFD. This venue could also work well with paid-en-wp at wikipedia . org for the handling of private evidence. MER-C 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the idea of somewhat rewarding UPE with us cleaning up their garbage for them. Tapad was an article I came across the other day. It's now a GA. All the UPEs managed to do was get it declined half a dozen times for promo editing, eg Special:Permalink/565913721. Then others cleaned up the mess. Honestly, blatant UPE should just be CSD'd (time for A12?), rather than a PROD-like process giving a chance for improvement. It shouldn't be anybody's job to clean up that mess. Nor should we give the impression that we'll clean up people's UPE for them. If the article is notable and could be written encyclopaedically by someone else, I'm sure it can be started from scratch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Another strategy that might work for decreasing "verification" articles and some other forms of mercenary editing is to tighten the requirement to make pages in mainspace to extended-confirmed. We at #wikipedia-en-help on IRC have been seeing a rash of draftpages being moved to mainspace by their authors in an effort to bypass the (frankly unreasonably long) review queue; without fail these are all moved back to draft or taken to AfD; an extended-confirmed creation requirement would block this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 19:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I'm confused. You say the AfC queue is unreasonably long, but you suggest extended-confirmed protection as a solution? Not to mention, there's plenty of editors here who write articles, are efficient with their edit count, and heck, got autopatrolled before they got extended-confirmed. I don't think this restriction is a net plus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, I would want the ability to move out of draftspace to be extended-confirmed only, but this leaves the loophole that ACPERM is only autoconfirmed, which incentivises these spammers to make autocon-busters specifically to post their spam to mainspace. Extended-confirmed is much harder to game. I view the issue of the AfC queue and trying to circumvent it as separate things, since those looking to seriously bypass it are almost always mercenaries. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 07:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I don't agree that commercial editing is our biggest issue, I mean, the Nazis are back, among other things. Some commercial editing produces good encyclopedia content, and that's our overall mission. I'll agree that it's our most complicated issue, certainly, but I fear that outright banning all commercial editing risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have policies that enable and guide commercial editing so that we can ensure compliance with our standards, and many for-pay editors follow them, but we don't have the volunteer power to keep up with the torrent of spammy garbage that is constantly contributed. That's where I think the policies could be strengthened. Off the top of my head:
  1. Purge noncompliant commercial contributions, in the same way that we purge copyright violations. Contribs violating the TOS can't be presumed to be compliant with our site license anyway.

1. Deprecate speedy deletion criterion WP:G13. It is abused far too often to "preserve" adverts masquerading as draft articles that would be immediately deleted under WP:G11 if they were in any other namespace. This goes as well for any proposal for a time-limited "review" of commercial drafts. The sort of entity that misunderstands Wikipedia to the point of trying to buy themselves an article probably also doesn't understand the difference between an article and a draft, and an unaccepted draft surviving for six months is plenty of time for a freelancer to dupe a client into paying for work that we'll delete later; Orangemoody exploited policy naïveté extensively. If it's an advert, delete it immediately. If our goal is to eliminate abusive commercial editing we are far too lenient on this.
2. Salt commercial titles by default, and by that I mean add a criterion "previously created for pay" as a creation protection rationale. If something has been created for pay before it will be again, so let the next editor draft something compliant before we allow it to exist in article space.
3. On that note, have a speedy criterion similar to WP:G4 for recreated commercial articles. If any page previously deleted as spam is recreated and has not been brought into compliance, delete it immediately.
4. One more after edit conflicting with Jéské Couriano's comment above: make cross-namespace moves a permission which can be revoked by admins if it's abused or used incorrectly, pending an explanation from the user that they understand the article creation requirements.

Just some thoughts, but if the community gives admins some teeth, we'll bite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm open not to deprecating G13, but to introducing a new general speedy criterion based on Risker's comments that we should not allow content from UPEs anywhere on Wikipedia. G13 has some uses outside of preserving obvious UPE, and I would rather take that burden off it by adding a criterion that applies to such content in any namespace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I figure the idea lab may be more appropriate to get some ideas on policy here, rather than AN? I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Stronger_policies_against_(undisclosed)_paid_editing. Slight discussion fork, but probably the more appropriate venue for what this section is turning into. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User subpages are usually better. Idea lab tends to be where ideas go to die. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Noting, since I was mentioned above in relation to the Orangemoody situation, that I agree with TonyBallioni and the array of other checkusers that CU is largely irrelevant to stopping paid editing. Orangemoody was a special case, in that the "paid" part of the editing wasn't really the reason for the investigation; it was the blackmail, the assumption of identities of other editors, the copyvios, and the leveraging of WP policy that justified that case. The overwhelming majority of "commercial" editing today is done as individual rather than serial sock accounts. Block the accounts, move on. I agree with most of what Ivanvector says above, as well; just get rid of the spam, don't allow it even in draft space, and move on. There are good reasons to have articles about some commercial entities, but there is almost never a good reason to have an article about a law firm, a lot of the financial entities, the people involved in these sorts of organizations, and so on. Notability standards can still use a significant upgrade. Risker (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Outlining a new policy on Commercial editing

(moved to User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy)

Let me try a general outline before moving this to Village Pump of a better space .

• Intro
• Defining commercial. editing
• Allowed editing
• Prohibited editing
• Enforcement

Commercial editing Commercial editors, those who edit Wikipedia as part of a commercial transaction, have historically caused problems on Wikipedia by violating our policies on NPOV, No advertising, No spam, No promotion, .... Their actions are currently regulated by WP:COI, and WP:Paid editing disclosure, but problems have continued. This policy supplements WP:COI and WP:PAID and all commercial editors must follow all of these rules.

Defining commercial editing

A commercial editor is any editor who accepts payment or similar inducements to edit a Wikipedia article. The following type of editors are automatically considered to be commercial editors.

• Firms that advertises that they will edit or create Wikipedia articles for pay or similar inducements.
  • The owners, managers, employees, and contractors of these firms.
• Firms that sell goods or services that do not include Wikipedia editing or writing services, if they edit Wikipedia
  • Owners, managers, board members or employees of the legal, public relations, marketing or sales departments, or employees who receive a commission based on sales or revenue (more later) ````

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: I think this should probably be a separate draft. Noticeboards are a poor venue for drafting policy. With a separate draft you also have a talk page to discuss development, at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ok, thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • A first draft is ready at User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Also plugging in MER-C's proposals at User:MER-C/Paid2019. For a policy to be effective there needs to be adequate enforcement abilities given to administrators, otherwise it'll just be ignored like current policies are. There seems to be various past proposals to strengthen wording, but wording alone won't help if it can't be properly enforced. I like MER-C's for the various enforcement and review processes. I like some of your proposals, like the suffixing of (commercial) to usernames, and addressing previously raised concerns like WiRs. I think a mixture of both your and MER-C's proposals could produce the policy needed, and ideally one that can pass as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I entirely agree. It may take me awhile to plug this in (right at the end where people will remember it!). @ProcrastinatingReader: do you want to go ahead and give it a try? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can individual articles be contested?

An editor has removed the deletion tag from one of the articles explicitly listed for deletion here [41]. I'm not sure if this is allowed. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That was me. I've been around long enough to remember (and be an active participant) in a similar, but stormier and more restricted discussion of Arch Coal. Regardless of who creacted Delivery Hero, I think it is similarly clearly notable. I'm afraid I haven't been active enough in the intervening 15 years to fully follow the process proposed by the discussion closer of deleting and then restoring to draft, but think it is a decent article as it stands, which can be improved but does not need to be in order to be acceptable. I'm happy to follow any process, but would love to minimize needless bureaucracy. I removed the CSD tag also in part since it was inaccurate as placed: it was tagged G5 which does not apply, since creator was not banned at the time of creation, and others have edited since creation; and G11 which also doesn't apply since it doesn't only serve to promote. I recognize this was a good-faith attempt to force-fit consensus here into CSD categories, though in my personal opinion this illustrates the dangers of trying to bypass our established deletion criteria by an ad-hoc consensus (I would call it drive-by consensus) in a debate on a different topic, whether to ban someone.

I also looked at Day Software which I WP:BOLDly redirected to its new parent owner since that seems a more suitable outcome than full deletion; at Linx Cargo Care Group which I don't know or care about enough to have a firm opinion (I think it is marginal) and so took no action; and at Firefly Aerospace which I also suspect could be kept as-is, but was and is not tagged for deletion so I also didn't do anything. The talk page makes it clear on the latter there has been some conflict between people with apparently vested interest (pro and con) on this company.

I recognize my edits in this matter are somewhat irregular given the close above, but then again a consensus on deletion, outside of established deletion criteria and process, of 30-odd articles as a group as a conclusion of a user ban discussion, is somewhat irregular as well. Happy to step aside if this is counterproductive. Martinp (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I feel 100% the opposite. Re-litigating individual articles via AfD is unnecessary given that the community has already reached consensus here. The remedy for those who disagree on a case-by-case basis is to personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of their own reputation. Simply short-circuiting the deletion which has already been announced as the RfC outcome is not an option IMO. Hope to hear from others on this. - Bri.public (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of their own reputation - isn't that what Martinp just did (by removing the tag, contesting the deletion, and posting the paragraph above)? Primefac (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

AFD is more about assessing the notability, not the current state of the article. Also consensus was to delete articles created by Wikiprofessionals, but it's unlikely that these were the articles they created. The list originally included several articles created by established editors, obviously it wouldn't have been acceptable to delete them but the error rate is probably still much higher than what RHaworth was desysopped for (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth). Peter James (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO, an experienced editor in good standing contesting CSD is in accordance with the last sentence of the close, just skips/substitutes a few steps (article is tagged, article gets deleted, article is restored to draft, article is moved back to mainspace, CSD is contested, article goes to afd if someone disagrees with its existence). I think you linked the wrong diff. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(resp to all 3 comments above)Indeed, if we want to follow established process, irrespective of the nature of the consensus that was judged here, we should find a different way of implementing it than tagging one (but not others?) of the articles in the list with *technically incorrect* CSD templates. A consciencious administrator would have removed the tag rather than deleted on the basis of the placed CSD tags anyway, since neither criterion that was specified (G5 or G11) actually applies: creator was not blocked/banned when article created; others have made substantial contributions (top 10% of editors represent just 31.2% of edits sez the articleinfo xtool); the article is not wholly promotional (note extensive criticism section). In addition, Delivery Hero survived an AFD as a speedy keep (after notability was demonstrated) in 2016.

Thus we are in WP:IAR territory, which is fine. Given the context, collectively it seems we want to nuke all these articles bar case-by-case exceptions rasied by established editors. Well, I'm raising Delivery Hero as one such objection. As discussed already in the 2016 AFD, and as is clear from a cursory internet search, the company clearly notable. They own the Foodora chain and have bought up other similar food delivery chains globally, and dealt with quite a bit of pretty public controversy regarding employee/contractor classification that is covered in the article. Regardless of its history, I think it would be very difficult for anyone to look at this article individually and conclude it shouldn't exist. To say I "personally rescue the article from deletion and take care of its neutrality at the risk of my own reputation" is pretty melodramatic, but I am asserting that I'm pretty sure this article should stay, that's is OK (though doubtless can be improved) the way it is. And that notwithstanding our collective desire to nuke spammer detritus, perhaps we need to be a bit more careful than zapping something just because it appeared on a list. For instance, I think Firefly Aerospace is another similar example, though I'm less sure of that one. Martinp (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd see two pieces here. First off, G5 does apply. Undisclosed paid editors are already banned from editing Wikipedia; they are editing in violation of our policies. The fact that they hadn't been caught yet doesn't change that, just like edits by any banned sockpuppet before they get caught aren't suddenly "not banned". So everything created by a UPE in the area for which they are being paid is a banned edit, and subject to G5 or the like. Undisclosed paid editing is basically a topic ban that applies to every editor, and edits made in violation of that should be treated accordingly. That said, in the case of edits by a banned editor, an editor in good standing may choose to take on responsibility for those edits. Now, that does mean "take on responsibility"—that editor is, when they do so, for all intents and purposes the one who made those edits. But if they are willing to do that, that is permitted. I would just caution that if you take on responsibility for any edits which were inappropriate, you can then be sanctioned exactly as though you personally made them to begin with, so check carefully. If in any doubt, work on it in draft instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade: You are incorrect. G5 does not include UPE creations per this discussion from a year ago. There are additional discussions in other archives (an earlier one) indicating that there is no speedy deletion criterion related to UPE creations. --Izno (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Izno, that discussion rejected the idea that everything written by an editor engaged in UPE was G5 eligible. That of course was rejected; only the UPE stuff is. However, local consensus cannot override global, so until and unless UPE is permitted, it is banned, and known UPE is G5-eligible. Period. That particular discussion was just a poor NAC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade:, that's an interesting argument, but if truly put to the test, doubt it would fly. Consensus has on several occasions failed to endorse it. The text at WP:G5 makes it clear the actual blocking/banning (as a labeled act) is meant to be pertinent and the sockpuppet situation is dealt with as a separate bullet. However, in this case your argument would struggle even more, since the creation of the article predates by several years the banning of UPE in the TOU (2014+-?). G5 also requires the article have no substantial edits by others. This article was created, by the spammer, in 2012, in their sandbox, and submitted to AfC, where it was passed and moved into mainspace with some improvement by others. It survived an AFD as a Speedy Keep in 2016. It has now been edited by 87 users and the spammer's contributions represent 6.2% of its content (unless they were using multiple accounts I guess). There is no concievable way G5 applies in the way it is written. If people continue to want to have this article deleted, let's take it to AFD (or I guess DRV, if some admin wants to first nuke it by invoking IAR on the basis of the discussion above, without reference to CSD). I'm pretty comfortable that a 5 day discussion by deletion process regulars on the article's merits will result in a Keep. If people want to significantly expand G5 for UPE-tainted articles, let's reach a consensus on that in a relevant venue, but Delivery Hero won't exactly be a good poster boy for it! Martinp (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, certainly. I'm speaking more generally; cases where we have a sock get caught and know that they've pulled several of them. In this case, you've already said you'd take it on, so that's fine anyway, and regardless in this case (Wikiprofessionals) it was explicitly discussed and the community decided that everything known to be by them needs to go, but since in this case you're taking it on, that no longer falls under it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of the outcome of the debate on G5, could someone also look at Alaba Lawson? The G5 tag has been removed there as well. I have emailed evidence to paid-en-wp that this is another work by the banned entity. Will there be a response when it been evaluated? The discussion at WP:COIN referred me back here for resolution. - Bri.public (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• There is an interesting case as to whether known UPE (which the community has, unfortunately, decided does not currently suffice as a deletion grounds) breaching the TOS warrants deletion. I suspect that were we to quiz Legal they'd almost certainly say that since we can set the paid editing policy to what we want, so long as we were considering the issue they'd want no part of designating it either way. Since they wouldn't, I'm reticent for us to use direct TOS enforcement on the issue rather than deciding a new CSD (or formally expanding G5). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic bans from articles based on unpaid COI, with no evidence of problematic editing?

Bnguyen1114 was the subject of an article on The Intercept recently about his edits to the Kamala Harris page. He was subsequently doxed/outed on Twitter and here. Following that, he disclosed that he has donated money to and volunteered for various politicians over the years. Based just on the fact of those COIs, SlimVirgin topic banned Bnguyen1114 from articles about all of the politicians he has volunteered for in the past "and their opponents", without evidence of any problematic editing regarding those subjects.

I find this unsettling. It may be that there's sufficient evidence provided in the Intercept piece and in the history of the various Kamala Harris pages for a tban about her, but topic banning someone from other subjects because of disclosed past unpaid volunteering, with no evidence of problematic edits of those subjects, does not seem in line with our WP:COI policy.

I'm not arguing that Bnguyen1114 doesn't have a COI, that all of his edits were good, etc. The central question here is whether it's ok to topic ban someone from several pages due not to evidence of problematic editing on those pages but to the fact of a disclosed unpaid COI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. It looks to me like Sarah acted entirely appropriately. The COI precludes the user from editing those articles, but Sarah invited them to engage the respective talk pages. El_C 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you cite the policy text that says that disclosing an unpaid COI disqualifies someone from editing that article? Or that sanctions should be based on possible problems rather than evidence of problems? There's a spectrum of COI, and this isn't even at the far end of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a discretionary sanction, not per the COI policy. DS gives admins pretty broad discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

... And the user was alerted by Barkeep on 3 July to the existence of AP2 DS, so this action looks valid under DS. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Izno, this comment has made me think. As a purely procedural point I would note that this editor disclosed their COI prior to 3 July (the date they were given the DS warning). After being DS warned, they did not edit Kamala Harris. They reiterated (effectively) the same COI disclosure after 3 July when Sarah asked at WP:COIN, a disclosure which resulted in their topic-ban. The only mainspace articles they've edited since the DS warning is adding list entries to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. So this makes me wonder, can editors be sanctioned under DS for actions they committed before being warned of DS? The warning at WP:ACDS doesn't suggest this is forbidden, but it would make the requirement for warning moot if this were permissible. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's right in {{uw-coi}}. El_C 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not, though. It provides suggested practices and says "avoid". These are indeed good practices, but it doesn't say you're prohibited from doing so, and doesn't acknowledge the spectrum of COI. By the same language, if I showed up for a day to phonebank for McCain in 1999 (I didn't), then it doesn't matter whether I've edited articles about him or how I edited them -- any admin can just come by and impose a topic ban "because DS"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Rhododendrites. WP:ACDS is by definition at the discretion of the enforcing admin. El_C 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse as I expressed a few days ago at Talk:Kamala Harris, I don't believe they were a bad faith editor or paid, but I do think their edits were problematic. In my lengthy reply at WP:COIN I noted specific diffs I believe to be problematic or attempting to remove unflattering information. Other admins like Drmies have labelled it problematic, as well. The topic ban is a DS, not per the COI policy, and I think the ban is well within admin discretion for DS, to ensure the smooth running of problematic areas. The editor in question can always appeal at WP:AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Per WP:COICAMPAIGN. Quite frankly, a one-week block might have been too lenient given their attempts to whitewash the Harris article. Calidum 15:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, they weren't blocked for something relating to the Harris article, they were blocked for making an edit in violation of their topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. They both involve editing topics for which the user has a conflict of interest, however, and should not be editing. Calidum 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Rhododendrites's accusation, unsupported by a diff, that Bnguyen1114 was doxed/outed on Twitter and here (emphasis added) is false. He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity (Redacted) by Katherine Maher, chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia. But he was not doxed/outed on Wikipedia. NedFausa (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

^^ This is gross. I'm not going to link to evidence of being outed obviously, and it's outrageous that people are ok with Ned repeatedly linking to tweets that dox Wikipedians while claiming with a straight face that it means Maher "confirmed his identity" (or, as Ned said on Bnguyen's talk page, "found him guilty"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly not okay. Redacted and strongly warned. What were you thinking, Ned? El_C 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I said "repeatedly" because there's another instance of the link that Ned just redacted on Bnguyen1114's talk page (but should be revdelled too), and both of these came after two other redacted edits last week on Bnguyen1114's talk page and at User talk:Katherine (WMF) (by Barkeep49 and Stwalkerster), but possibly for different reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand Rho's point and agree with the general proposition that volunteering for a political campaign should not, in and of itself, prohibit an editor from editing articles related to the candidate or their opponents. However, the devil is always in the details, and in this case, it all depends on what "volunteering" means, exactly. I'm not going to get into outing anybody but there is a difference between a person who volunteers to hold a sign on a street corner on a Saturday afternoon, and someone who volunteers, say, for a high-level leadership position within the campaign organization. In other words, there's a difference between being a "front line worker" volunteer, and being a "boss" or "executive"-level volunteer. It also matters if, for example, an editor's COI disclosures are accurate; if they're not (and I'm not saying they were or weren't in this case), but if they're not, that could be grounds for sanctions. In this particular case, putting together all the evidence, I think the TBAN was justified, and this edit definitely violated that TBAN, and so the block was justified. Still, I'd support some revisions to WP:COICAMPAIGN to clarify these issues and address the general problems Rho raises about volunteering and COI. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question What the Hell is the WMF doing doxxing Wikipedia editors? It's bad enough when Wikidemocracy does it. (waves at many off-wiki fans). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Technically, Maher responded stating that doxing Wikipedia editors is wrong, she criticised the person who did it, although simply by responding she did inadvertently bring more attention to the dox. I don't think Maher actually confirmed or denied that identity, or did any checking to see if the dox was accurate. Her only mistake was responding at all, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note the timing here. Katherine Maher, in her official capacity, publicly corroborated the off-wiki outing of Bnguyen1114 and insinuated that he was guilty of COI, nearly five full days before that charge was made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. NedFausa (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, she strongly warned against the doxxing, though. That's pretty key. El_C 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, she didn't. Someone on the Internet said "hey you have an editor with a COI" and she responded ~"COI is bad. so is doxing". That doesn't corroborate anything. You're repeatedly presenting this like Katherine Maher issued a statement on WMF letterhead explaining that somehow she knows the identity of Bnguyen1114 and confirms it is the person in the doxing tweet. It doesn't say that. It could be any tweet from someone saying "you have an editor with a COI" that she responded to with ~"COI is bad". It's frankly bizarre that you're repeatedly bringing up this tweet and engaging in hard core framing ("in her official capacity", "which owns and hosts Wikipedia", etc.) to make it say something it doesn't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweeting from her verified account, Katherine Maher decried the off-wiki doxing. But significantly, Twitter neither suspended the account she responded to nor forced deletion of that tweet, which remains online despite Twitter's strong policies against doxing. Maher is a highly experienced Twitter user, having posted 27.5K tweets since joining that platform in 2008. It's fair to presume she is familiar enough with its rules to realize that the user she chastised did not violate them. I infer that she was at minimum grandstanding, if not trying to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case, which anyone knowledgeable about Wikipedia could by then foresee was inevitable. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting Maher posted a tweet on July 2 to influence the outcome of the formal on-wiki COI case that was brought on July 8? Are you drunk? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, even a drunk (and I'd never accuse Katherine Maher of insobriety) acquainted with Wikipedia's internal workings could have predicted that a formal COI case would ensue from The Intercept′s exposé. When Maher tweeted "You're both wrong" she obviously meant the Twitter user she was directly addressing and the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page, whom that user had identified through simple deduction and whom The Intercept had named as Bnguyen1114. NedFausa (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So your theory is that, in order to influence an on-wiki discussion she predicted would come in the future, Maher responded to a tweet by saying that both COI and doxxing is bad? That's insane. That's patently insane.

You really should strike what you've written here about what Maher tweeted. "He was doxed/outed on Twitter, including confirmation of his identity, by Katherine Maher", "in her official capacity," "publicly corroborated", and "insinuated that he was guilty of COI" are all false accusations. These aren't matters of opinion where reasonable people disagree, these are straight-up lies. If you said these things about a fellow editor, you'd be sanctioned for it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, Ned. You are acting below par at this time. Please make an effort to do better. El_C 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On July 3, Katherine Maher tweeted that the person editing Kamala Harris's Wikipedia page was "wrong." That person (Bnguyen1114) had not doxed anyone. He had edited Wikipedia. How was he "wrong" in doing so if not by violating WP:COI? NedFausa (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned, you're not getting it and you should probably withdraw. You cannot cast aspersions on Katherine Maher with various conjecture. El_C 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I am puzzled; I thought you knew better. Levivich is correct: your assessment of the situation is wrong, and you're just adding fuel to the fire by those misrepresentations. There is no need to respond: refraining from further commentary on this matter is response enough. Please take El C's comment, above, as a final warning. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned's description of Maher's tweets bear no resemblance to fact. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I don't know what else can be said about this. WP:COICAMPAIGN is clear: "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents." If you're arguing that unpaid campaign workers don't count, I disagree. In addition, the article is covered by DS, which allows admins to impose sanctions, including topic bans. Taking all the circumstances into account, I thought it best to topic ban him from editing about the politicians for whom he said he had volunteered, and their opponents. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm unclear whether the DS sanction was in-process here. Bnguyen1114 was given a DS alert on 3 July and received the sanction on 8 July. Between those two events they made a handful of edits to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements but nothing I would consider excessive. The letter of the law says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict but doesn't explicitly say that the editor must have made problematic edits, but I feel like that's kind of implied. I really mean this as a question (and not an implicit accusation) since I don't work AE, it just seems a little iffy from what I understand. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I want to return to the "no evidence of problematic editing" phrase in the original post. I hold SarahSV in very high regard and learned a lot from her when I first started editing over a decade ago. And I have no problem with the topic ban she imposed on Bnguyen1114 regarding Kamala Harris, most obviously, and also Joe Biden. I have no problem with the short block. But I have some concern about the topic bans she imposed regarding Josh Harder and Claire McCaskill and their opponents. As far as I know, Bnguyen1114 has not edited either of those articles, and McCaskill is no longer in elected office. I feel uncomfortable with what looks like pre-emptive topic bans when there has been no known disruption by this editor regarding these two BLPs. The only basis that I can see is that the editor behaved inappropriately at the Kamala Harris BLP and later voluntarily disclosed without prompting that they had done volunteer work for the other two politicians. SarahSV, can you explain why you concluded that these two additional topic bans were necessary? And why you exempted Jill Biden from the Joe Biden topic ban, broadly construed? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words, Cullen. GeneralNotability, this is a reply to your post too. I've been discussing COI on Wikipedia for several years, and I helped to write the COI guideline. COI is not about advocacy, or good and bad editing. It's about a tendency to bias that we assume exists when people have real-life roles and relationships that conflict with their role on Wikipedia. It's about the disquiet within the community and the undermining of public confidence when those conflicts are not dealt with. Most COI editing takes place under the radar. But in the case of the upcoming U.S. election, everything is being scrutinized, and suspicions about COI harm everyone, including the candidates (most unfairly when they have no involvement). I therefore felt it was important to bring to an end the discussions about Bnguyen1114's editing, which were harming him too.
    Drmies expressed concern in May about Bnguyen's editing of Kamala Harris, and Jpgordon asked him to step back from it, but he continued. At 01:47, 3 July, he was alerted to the DS (although he was aware of them already from the Harris page). He continued editing about Joe Biden's endorsements. On 7 July, Pudeo opened a COIN, and during that discussion on 8 July, Bnguyen1114 disclosed that he had volunteered in 2018 for Claire McCaskill and Josh Harder, in 2019 for Kamala Harris, and in 2020 for Joe Biden. I therefore imposed a topic ban in relation to all four. You asked why I included McCaskill and Harder. It would have made no sense not to include them. Either he can edit about them or he can't; the topic ban covered the area of his disclosure. As for Jill Biden, he disclosed only having had his photograph taken with her, so I did not include her by name, but being banned from Joe Biden broadly construed would include family members. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you're saying the tban isn't because of content policy violations/problematic edits or even necessarily because this COI is an example of an egregious enough COI such that it merits a preemptive tban, but because of the integrity of public confidence in Wikipedia. This seems to presume that some critical number of people who read the Intercept article will be able to follow on-wiki happenings and their concerns about Wikipedia will be assuaged by learning that he was topic banned/blocked. More importantly, going back to my original statement, I'm very uneasy with enacting sanctions against editors to send a message to external critics. As with any article-specific Wikipedia controversy, the process should be a highly visible investigation of the edits, using the talk page to discuss their merits/problems, and fixing what needs to be fixed. Maybe even writing up a summary in the Signpost for the external observers. But the editors involved should be treated just as anyone else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't recall ever having sanctioned someone to send a message to external critics. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Apologies if my indenting is incorrect, SarahSV, but I started donating to and volunteering for American political candidates way back in 1972, continuing right through the present moment. If I posted a list on Wikipedia of all the campaigns I voted and volunteered for, I would not expect to be topic banned from any of them unless I engaged in unacceptable editing behavior on specific ones of them. I will give you a specific example: I donated to and volunteered for the Walter Mondale presidential campaign in 1984. Should I be topic banned now from Mondale and Ronald Reagan, and every person that Mondale ever ran against? Even though I never disrupted those articles? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • SlimVirgin, my query above is simply re the DS. I agree with your topic-ban (at least in principle), and as I stated above and at COIN and the other talk I do find the edits to be problematic, but per my response at the top of this section I'm also curious on DS' limitations here.

    The disclosure he gave to you on the 8th at COIN is pretty much the same as the one he gave on 2 July in Special:Diff/965696863. All his editing at Kamala Harris, and the COI disclosure, were made prior to the DS notice. After the DS notice, as far as mainspace edits go, he only added uncontroversial bullet list items to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. It doesn't seem procedurally correct to sanction an editor based on DS, for actions done prior to notification. And although WP:AC/DS doesn't explicitly prohibit this, it does seem to go against the point of requiring a warning using an unmodified {{ds/aware}} template before you can sanction an editor. The notice on Kamala Harris' talk isn't sufficient per AC/DS#Awareness. So while I agree with the tban, I just want to query if this is indeed procedurally correct? Because, if it is, this kind of DS enforcement makes the very strict & specific alert/awareness requirements moot. For clarity, I don't disagree that the block was warranted per your topic-ban, I'm only questioning if the topic-ban itself was correct per the above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I cannot speak for Sarah, but with respect to procedure, the discretion authorized for admins by WP:ACDS, allows for AE action in this instance. Yes, even if the optics may not be that great in the limited sense of the post-WP:AWARE edits not having been particularly problematic. El_C 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, say, hypothetically, he had made no mainspace edits post-notification (pretending those edits at List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements didn't happen), and hence this topic-ban would be based solely off pre-notification actions, would you say that topic ban is still permissible (per WP:ACDS)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, failure to satisfy the requirements of WP:AWARE would make it against procedure to impose sanctions. El_C 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, sorry, let me clarify a bit... The scenario I'm trying to understand is: editor does something stupid, they get a DS notification, they get sanctioned for that pre-notification stupid thing they did. In this scenario, they are sanctioned after the warning, but for actions before the warning. WP:AWARE doesn't seem to explicitly say this isn't allowed? Applied to my hypothetical above, the editor was given the DS notice on the 3rd. Say he didn't make those edits on that list article about Biden, would it be permissible for an admin to give him a topic ban on the 4th as a DS, for his edits prior to notification on the 3rd? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, no, it would not be permissible in that scenario. El_C 04:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, his 2 July post was not the same as his COIN disclosure on 8 July; the latter was more specific. It was then that he acknowledged having worked as a volunteer for Biden and Harris, his main topics: "In 2019, I volunteered on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. In 2020, I phonebanked for Joe Biden's presidential campaign in the run up to the New Hampshire primary."

I'm curious about the amount of interest in this. This is an SPA, created in November, that focused on Biden and Harris: 2,682 edits, 97.5 percent to mainspace; 1,626 edits to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements; 11 talk page edits. The topic ban is limited to his disclosure; he's blocked only because he violated it immediately. He was alerted to the DS and he continued making edits about Biden. How many should I waited for? Five edits, 50? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, just the one :) -- I was only curious on the awareness part for the t-ban itself. I think El C cleared some of that up for me. I guess 'discretion' applies even wider than the wide interpretation I had for it before, with regards to the list edits (clue's in the name, I suppose). I was only curious about procedure, not your judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

From upthread The only mainspace articles they've edited since the DS warning is adding list entries to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. and the ban placed: is required not to edit certain articles because of a disclosed COI. The affected articles are anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. I read the ban in question as being "broadly construed" without using that wording (it should have, I think), of which List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is among the set of articles broadly construed. That's 100% a topic ban violation. Sometimes we give leeway to oldhands here and there as they adjust and sometimes we give leeway to new hands to see if they really can find something new to edit, but a SPA for these articles doesn't really fit into those categories. I think SV's actions here were within administrative remit. I also agree with El_C's interpretation, but that interpretation isn't interesting here if so. --Izno (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse the TBAN (including its scope, which is actually a lot less broad than it could have been, normally we go WP:BROADLY). This looks like a carefully tailored restriction by SV based on a good-faith reading of the situation. If Bnguyen1114 wants to appeal, in whole or in part, then let's hear it, but as an admin action this is well within the limits of normal discretion. Guy (help!) 08:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose the AE sanction, as I feel that the post-alert edits did not warrant the TBAN, either a narrow one or across the indicated list of COIs. Their prior edits might have warranted a TBAN but that should have been considered more fully as an ANI sanction, not AE through administrator discretion. I also share some concerns that this looks like a very pre-emptive and/or reputational based sanction. There's no way that the current process could allow sanctioning if they hadn't made any edits post-alert, and since their post-alert edits weren't problematic that's functionally the situation we're in. Overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Salting

Category:Moowoo17, and similar 'Moowoo' pages have been created and deleted 8 times in the last 24 hours by a range of socks. These are clearly being created by an LTA, but is it worth us considering salting them? Best, Darren-M talk 22:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to the title blacklist to cover the whole lot of them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, gracias! :) Darren-M talk 23:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, who is this? zzuuzz, you blocked one of them, User:Suix Xar, three years ago, as a sock...who is this rat child? Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah--User:The Suix, acting like this for a few years now. Less interesting than I thought--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the original is User:The Suix, however there's an impersonation by My Royal Young going around, for example this one. It don't matter much anyway.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just imagine if these people got dates--we'd have a lot less work to do, but we'd likely have to alert the authorities and the family members. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

...and the rats.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Brahma Kumaris

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris, "article probation", is hereby terminated.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sashirolls reopen close

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

---

I have closed the above Sashirolls ban review as no consensus following a long reading. Review is welcome. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good close and very well explained. Britishfinance (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close: it was closed after discussion died down (~2 days without new comments); it explained how !votes were counted (including unclear !votes), how !votes were weighed, and how the ultimate no consensus conclusion was arrived at. I'm bummed there was no consensus to re-open the discussion but I wish Sashi luck on his future appeal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - also irked on the result but the explanation and process of it all was top quality. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - good timing (~2 days idle), good explanation of your rationale, obvious that you actually read the discussion, and open to review. Unlikely that everyone will be satisfied, but so it goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• A review of a close of a review of a close? I need to get out more :-) (Of course Sashirolls can just appeal and then we'll all be here again.) I think that only have been closed as no consensus.P-K3 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - As others have said this was a good summary of the recent discussion. It's too bad the original discussion was not treated as well. It also highlights one of the problem with supervote or other problematic close closings. When a no-consensus case gets closed with a "consensus" it's basically impossible to overturn. Those who wanted the consensus outcome come to the follow on discussion and say "all is well" Since overturning needs a consensus not just another no-consensus a basically impossible bar has been set by a bad closing that went with the majority (but not necessarily super majority needed for a consensus). Springee (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  +1. Closes should be overturned unless there's consensus that it's a good close, as opposed to being overturned only if there's consensus that it was a bad close. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, sounds real good in theory, if it weren't for the fact that, objectively speaking, the majority of banned editors deserved to be banned. The reality is that the encyclopedia and the project are vastly more important than any individual editor. The community has the right to protect that asset, and if that means that a mistake slips through occasionally, well, what of it? All that's happened is that a person can't edit a website. It's not a big deal, go find another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Hmm, that is good commentary on the process. If an article is moved and disputed, it is moved back and discussed. If a person is banned thru a disputed close, then it stands and must be overturned. Articles matter, yes; but do people? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close - well thought out statement. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The close of the discussion about the close was proper and valid and the closer closed it with a good close rationale. I just wish the closer of original close examined the discussion a little closer in their close as it was closer than the close disclosed. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I supported opening it back up just to end the matter once and for all, but it is very clear that there was no consensus in that discussion. To be honest, the very fact that the discussion took place was ample enough time to air all possibilities, so I'm satisfied that we have said all we need to say about it. In a nutshell, the close accurately reflects the discussion that took place, so I would endorse it, thus the original ban close stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close, and I really hope that everyone can now move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  I hope your retirement is now more peaceful. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's very nice of you, thanks. And here I would have thought that you might foster hostile feeling towards me, so I'm quite pleased to see you say that. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good close. I look forward to the review of the close of this close review thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close, but.... My feelings about this are pretty much the same as user:Springee. When MastCell cast his supervote in the original discussion he effectively gamed the system by imposing a high bar to get the result overturned. The original discussion should have been closed "no consensus" which would have ultimately not resulted in Sashi being banned. Instead, we now need to get a consensus to overturn something that didn't have a consensus to begin with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - in prior discussions, several editors said things along the lines of "god help any admin who tries to close this", as if editors are an unruly mob just waiting to pounce on the poor helpless closer. Well, this proves that actually, we "rabble" only "freak out" over bad closes. Good closes are widely respected, even by those who disagree with the ultimate result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Right outcome for the close. Disagree that the arguments in favour of opening were stronger, but I agree that it’s clear there’s no consensus to reopen/unban. I’m mainly commenting so we don’t get another “consensus” that closes should have consensus to stay closed when they’re challenged. It’s not very hard to get even the best possible close of a contentious discussion to “no consensus” on review. All you need is the people on the losing “side” showing up and bringing some friends along. There’s a reason we expect consensus to overturn consensus: we expect that sysops and other experienced editors act in good faith and with understanding of policy, and that their decisions are not arbitrary. If you get rid of those assumptions, whether it be for behavioural discussions or content discussions you’d either get significantly less people willing to close, or a whole bunch of people hedging with “no consensus” closed since there’s no reason to stick your neck out while closing a difficult discussion if it defaults to being overturned. Basically that model simply isn’t an effective way to run a self-governing community. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close - Echoing those above. While the original close was poor the correct close of this was no consensus. Now that said, I think Springee, Bison X, and Rusf10 made some good points that could merit some exploration in the future. In situations like this where there was such a clearly bad close it should probably not be you need consensus to overturn but rather consensus to keep. As they point out this is normally the case with things like contentious article moves. Eliminating the first mover advantage should be a goal in the future to ensure fair and just treatment of our editors. PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• The notion that there is an added barrier (excepting consensus to revoke) to revoke existing consensus is invalid, because it was placed with consensus and not at will. The general viewpoint on the close varied widely, so the notion probably stems from the idea of "no consensus" equating to "status quo", ideally this discussion should have had a clear outcome of endorse/overturn but it's hard to mandate that in a consensus-building system and is only possible if we choose to move to an absolute numeric measure, which I believe has a higher chance of being gamed compared to this half-bad status quo regime. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Good close in the context of the system, and probably the right result overall. (despite that I supported reopening) Maybe a systemic problem that you need a consensus to take a 2nd look at a strongly-questioned process which meted out a severe punishment. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Posible Vandalism in Animators articles

There is an IP editor than recently has been deleting parts of articles related to Walt Disney animators, w/o citing sources. I have reverted some of them, but the user sometimes seem to do constructive edits. So maybe we need some with some expertise to check his edits. There are some variation in the IP number, but seems the same user to me : Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:3C40:98DE:73D:D436 , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:E6:4318:1D1E:8568 , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:80F1:9662:D87D:3E8B , Special:Contributions/2601:584:8100:4B0:F915:4EA:E8DB:CF51

Could some expert take a look a this issue ?.Thank you (I also copy this message in the talk page of animation wikiproject) Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You can view all the contribs with a /64 I believe, here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE and MOS:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding Philishave article

I am wondering who shut down the discussion in the talk:Philishave dispute regarding whether the discontinued Philishave brand should be in the past tense or the present tense. I could not find an admin taking part in the discussion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Block

Can you please block 2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C||2401:4900:40A1:F1BF:DE79:DE1F:CD5E:106C two Dalip Singh Rana with the reason "removing content from pages"? --List of people from Chamar caste 2405:205:1104:FACD:0:0:1B20:48AD (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You will probably get a faster response at WP:AIV. Aasim 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a policy on suppression of extreme racist vandalism?

I'm thinking of two recent examples I've seen: [42] and [43]. Should that be removed from view? If so, can any admin be asked to do it, or does it go through Oversight? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think something needs to be WP:REVDELeted, you should ask an individual admin or just email it to oversight. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above, definitely ask for it to be RevDel'd. There is also an IRC Channel that is very responsive, #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. It's a shame that this type of vandalism seems to have increased recently. -- Dane ^talk 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Typically this kind of thing is revision-deleted under criterion 2: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" or 3: "Purely disruptive material". While edits like this are hideously offensive, oversight is for things that for whatever reason shouldn't be viewed even by administrators, and so is usually reserved for things like libel or the disclosure of personal information (accidental self-disclosure or WP:OUTING). I see these edits have already been revision deleted, so that should be sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• RD3 would be my go-to, but RD2 is good too. It falls under both, as GorillaWarfare says. Guy (help!) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Mid-September RfA Flight

Building off some recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about the lack of new RfAs, one idea that has been mooted is formally running people at RfA together. So I wanted to let people know that I am planning to nominate a candidate in mid-September RfA. If you, or a candidate you are nominating, are interested in joining a flight at that time reach out. Beyond WP:ORCP, Lee Vilenski, Nosebagbear, and I have also offered to give feedback to candidates who might be interested or a candidate could look at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination to find a potential nominator. Again if you are a potential candidate or nominator who would like to take part in a Mid-September RfA Flight please do reach out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, ifr we can't have solid people like Guy Macon and Levivich promoted then I doubt anything much will work. It functions as "votes for Sainthood" right now. Guy (help!) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have pretty modest ambitions for what this will accomplish but the benefit of this particular endeavor is that we can just do it, no RfC or culture change needed. Also as someone who passed RfA a tad more recently than you, I would dispute as a BLP violation the idea that I'm a saint :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you want someone to run next to whom your candidates will look good in comparison ;) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious question, was there ever an RfA for Levivich? I'm not seeing one, but I can't imagine he wouldn't pass. I can't say I always, or maybe often, agree with him, but he seems someone I'd trust to do a great job. Hobit (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I was checking back at this page about something else, and noticed this thread. To answer Hobit's question, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Levivich is a red link, so the answer is no. For the very little that it is worth, I think that Hobit would do a great job. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobit, no, and there was Drama before I got round to it last time. Guy (help!) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer)

• Andy Auld (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy Auld (aviator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy Auld (Scottish aviator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Andy Auld (pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andy Auld (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we have some admin eyes on this article's talk page? It was originally deleted at AfD, but was restored to mainspace virtually unchanged. So, it was tagged G4. But now the tag has been repeatedly removed ([44],[45],[46]). So once again, a sordid episode involving the ARS breaks out; note the usual edit-warring, disruptive editing and spurious claims on the talk page... —— § erial 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the usual tag teaming. Note the familiar names. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Take it to AfD, easiest solution. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There already was an AFD, for the exact same article, with extremely high turnout for AFD. Voters shouldn't be forced to endlessly relitigate this if nothing has changed. SnowFire (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree the article should be speedy removed back to Draft. Just as a matter of policy: let's take the standpoint of those in favor of the article that the AFD was wrong. IMO, the Wikipedia compliant options are too either file a pro-forma DRV to overturn the AFD, or else to resubmit an article that, at least in some vague form, has addressed the concerns raised in the AFD, such that there is at least some plausible way that the AFD might go differently. The additions while in Draft state did not fix this deficiency, such as the extreme reliance on a short blurb on a fansite without a listed author or publication rules (peppered with 10+ passing references of the name). I'm willing to believe that this article could actually come back some day, but it needs to stay in Draft until this is fixed. SnowFire (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

SnowFire, I have no objections if anyone wants to draftify it, but if any of the current editors moves it back to mainspace without independent review then I think they should be blocked. Guy (help!) 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The diff between the deleted version and the current one shows no significant change. This is a valid G4 and frankly a rather disappointing attempt to end-run around deltion process and then weasel in more edits via DYK. People should know better. Guy (help!) 15:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I know the ARS don't like being called a tag team, but to avoid that its members should try harder bot to give the impression. Unfortunately—because I didn't collect the diffs while the page was up, apologies—I can't see the discussion anymore, but if an admin would like to look at the deleted page and See just how many separate "Contested deletions" were made, by the same editors multiple times, then I think that's the dicdef of tag-teaming (let alone budgeoning). (Contested deletions: [47],[48],[49],[50],[51]) —— § erial 15:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• We should all slow down. Articles are resubmitted to main space all the time. I have a newspaper account now, and found multiple articles. In addition the DyK editors thought it was notable. There is no need to rush the deletion, as someone said above an AfD should be a proper avenue. Consensus can change. Look at Skyscraper city which was snow deleted four previous times and is now at a fifth AfD. Speedy was not the right outcome here IMO. I know that this audience has not been friendly to me or the ARS, and the snark is evident in the comments, but I am hoping that we can be reasonable and allow an AfD to proceed. There is no rush IMO. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a question of "liking" the ARS or otherwise (and I'd ask you to retract the that my argument was subjective), but of learning from experience. You personally asked me to assume good faith on the now-deleted talk page; but you were happy to join in the bludgeoning of the discussion. That does not good faith show. —— § erial 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I woke and saw the notice on my talk...then clicked to contest the speedy. Did not notice the discussion in that process. I did some work on the article and had just crawled out of bed. Sadly I am still tired from my C19 experience. Did I post something about you? Or was that another editor? I will retract if I did. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted something about local consensus and dyk. But to my memory nothing about you. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The current fuss has been occasioned by the article's appearance on the main page last night as a DYK. I regularly watch the main page (and have another article about the comet up there currently). So I saw it there and approved. It's also on my watchlist and so I saw it light up there when someone nominated it for deletion. Such mechanisms are the routine reason that editors are attracted to such disputes. The matter is being overdone as a deletion issue because the subject was a reasonably prominent squadron leader and we have a page about the squadron. See WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, Andrew Davidson would not object if we redirected the pilot article to that of the squadron, and then fully-protected the former against recreation. He wouldn't mind that at all, because it would be fully in keeping with WP:ATD  :) —— § erial 16:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger would be more sensible than deletion, of course. People seem to get over-excited about pilots for some reason. My most successful DYK was Tammie Jo Shults and she was nominated for deletion too, just like they tried to delete Chesley Sullenberger. And now we have Tolulope Arotile. It makes little sense but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I also had the article watch listed as Andrew did. I do not think it serves the readers to merge. The subject is a living war hero and when he dies there will be an obit which would likely be enough for us all to agree to WP:N. I found his exploits printed in the Cedar Rapids Gazette this am. My hope is that we could follow process here. The article should have the consensus to merge, delete, redirect, or stay in it's latest incarnation. I for one will add RS. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. No-one was following process by gaming the system, avoiding DRV and sneaking an article that had been deleted by consensus back into mainspace. On the other hand, Amakuru's tagging it G4 was absolutely following process. —— § erial 16:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It was in draft for about 6 months. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS changes as evidenced by the other article I mentioned. As I said, my newspaper account is active and there is quite a bit that can be added to an article which was DYK material yesterday. And i want to say again, I made no references to you in any derogatory fashion. Perhaps JzG can rep-open the talk page so that we can see it? Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You were clearly referring to me right up there' (I know that this audience has not been friendly to me or the ARS, and the snark is evident in the comments) (Yes, I know you can pretend that you were speaking in generalities, but considering I had mentioned the ARS in the very post before yours, you'll forgive me for a) not jumping to that conclusion, and b) not believing in coincidence). —— § erial 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: I said this on the old talk page, but that is not what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is about. If you read the guideline, it's about a small clique attempting to ignore core policies. A well-attended AFD with delete votes from editors in good standing across Wikipedia who were not part of some sort of canvassasing campaign is exactly the reverse of a local consensus: it's a strong consensus across the wider community at a page accessible by all, unlike a single talk page or a Wikiproject page. You can think the AFD was closed incorrectly, that's fine, large groups of editors can be wrong, but the problem was not "local consensus." Please cite some other policy, because it comes across (unintentionally, I'm sure) as a claim that this AFD was attended, by, say, 3 deletionist editors who all hate aviation and vote to delete any topic involving planes, which was not the case here. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Local consensus is determined by whomever is active during the AfD Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time. The original AfD was quite close, and def not an overwhelming delete. A different admin may have had a different close. In any event I am moving on...6 million other articles and i am presently researching a building from 1888. I cannot do anything about JzG's delete of the article. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I won't belabor the point, but that's a trivial definition of "local consensus" that would apply to every AFD and thus be meaningless as a reason to overturn any one AFD. When people cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in a fashion to discredit a decision, it usually means something a bit more specific and a bit more hostile than your version: that 4 super-haters of Epic Fantasy Saga X voted in lockstep to delete all the articles about it, or that 4 super-fans of Epic Fantasy Saga X voted to keep everything even articles about fictional in-setting rock formations. Anyway, good luck and good editing with the building from 1888! SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, 1888? A modern one then. The oldest building at my school was built in the 2th Century. The school was already a couple of hundred years old by then. Guy (help!) 10:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• We judge the reliability of sources, in no small part, by how they handle corrections and retractions. Today we had an untrue statement on the Wikipedia main page, "during the Falklands War Andy Auld helped make operational the Sea Harrier, a short take-off and vertical landing jet fighter". Not only is it factually untrue, it's not even what the cited source in the DYK nom says (which is also not an RS, but never mind that for now). This is a flub (and flubs are an inevitable result of trying to come up with multiple new articles for the main page every day even though we just don't have the people or the articles to do that), but besides that, is Wikipedia going to print a retraction or correction on the main page? Nope. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:General disclaimer.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  A general disclaimer is no substitute for admitting when we published, on our main page, incorrect information. We should act the way we expect our sources would: with a "corrections" box under DYK correcting and apologizing for this error. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich The statement about Auld is actually true. I did not write it but he pioneered the use of the sea harrier. I know that you were a delete !vote in the original AfD, but I hope that we can assess new RS and follow process in deletion. The SD seems out of process and the speed of it all is not needed. I know that you are an editor who studies process and knows the back alleys of WP. So I imagine how you may feel if you worked hard on an article, saw it accepted to DyK and then woke to this fracas. (For some reason I have been credited with starting the article- however I did not) I just helped to improve it. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, in my opinion, it all depends on the answer to this question (which I don't know because I can't see the now-delete article): what new sources were in the recreated article? If there were two new sources that met GNG (reliable, secondary, independent, in-depth... meaning at least 250-500 words about the subject IMO), then a WP:BOLD recreation seems like it's OK. Otherwise it seems against consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, actually it's not the result of trying to populate the main page, it's the result of people who are very motivated to get their article on the main page. This causes much lameness. Guy (help!) 17:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, as I understand it, the entire point of DYK is to motivate people to create new articles with the "carrot" of having those new articles appear on the main page, hence the 7-day nomination window. In my view, we should just put good articles up at DYK, regardless of when they were created. (Not necessarily articles that have GA status, just articles that are good. Although maybe limiting what goes on the main page to GA and above is not a bad idea.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, yes, but what actually happens is that most of them are the same people over and over again, with ever more tortured hooks trying to make trivial articles sound interesting. Guy (help!) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Which is another reason to just shut down the main Page entirely. It's lameness incarnate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Lameness incarnate" :) brilliant! —— § erial 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Having gone through the process myself, I agree that DYK appears to be dominated by a handful of prolific authors, so much so that they all must review a nomination before one of theirs can be published. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Deletion of irrelevant sandbox material at Marcel Hoffmeier

Hi, can an admin please delete all revisions of Marcel Hoffmeier (formerly my sandbox) up till (and not including) this revision? I figure that the useless sandbox revisions are cluttering up the article history but I don’t need the old sandbox revs. Thanks in advance. Eumat114 (Message) 10:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it qualifies for revdel. The criteria for revdel is pretty strict. This might could be a WP:IAR exception but would prefer input from others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I've done it. This wasn't a revdel request, or at least it wasn't intended to be - revision deletion would still leave the sandbox revisions visible (but inaccessible) in the history. Technically it's a history split followed by a G7 of the excess revisions, both of which are usually uncontroversial. —Cryptic 11:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Kind of an unusual request, haven't run across it before, but that makes sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Community sanctions alert updates

• All GS templates now automatically log notifications in 602, and are displayed with {{Ds/log}}, just like with ArbCom sanctions, so requirements to manually log notifications (eg this) should no longer be required.
• I've started a discussion proposing further changes, these ones being visible, to {{Gs/alert}}, to bring it in line with changes since in {{Ds/alert}}. The proposed version can be seen at {{Gs/alert/sandbox}}. The discussion is at WT:GS, here. Comments appreciated.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:

• Keegan (talk · contribs)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)

The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL (talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.

The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.

Katie^talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#changes to functionary team

• What...these are some quality people. Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, SQL, thank you for loaning us your expertise and your judgment, and for keeping the community safe by employing a set of powerful and necessary tools. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct

I've been threatened with a block here (and on ANI) because I challenged a close in which the closing administrator didn't even read the comments I made, did not apply sanctions against an editor for blatant violations of WP:NPA, nor apply sanctions or investigate violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW by multiple editors and one administrator, and shut down active discussion regarding an issue. I honestly don't know what to say other than if this is how editors are treated for attempting to point out rule violations, no wonder some people are considered "untouchable" - they're protected by threats of administrator action for attempting to ask for rules to be enforced. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The IP is gaslighting both in this statement and in the original thread. The close in question is here.I read their arguments, but I chose not to mention them because they were so over the top that I don't think anyone would have seriously thought they had a chance to be sanctioned. You might disagree with some of the things editors from either side said in that thread, but none of the editors the IP mentioned did anything approaching sanctionable conduct, and any proposal to implement them would have been met with a snow close.
  If people want to review my comment where they claimed I threatened to block them for questioning my close it is here. I in fact did not threaten to block them for challenging my close: since they'd raised an issue with it, I don't think that would be appropriate. I will admit that I did point out the range to block if the reviewing administrator felt it worth blocking. I considered blocking the IP as a part of the close since their behaviour in it was, ironically, classic WP:RGW/WP:TE type behaviour (see: [52], [53], [54], [55]), but decided against it since they claimed to be dynamic. I should have looked closer at both the IP and range (Special:Contributions/52.119.101.2/20), its apparently relatively static and the range doesn't have that much collateral/it appears to be one main editor in project space (see WP space contribs and all contribs for the relevant range).
  Anyway, as I previously said I have no opposition to any uninvolved administrator undoing my close. I also think that the person behind this IP is just stiring the pot and causing drama at boards, so it makes sense to prevent that, especially since there wouldn't be much collateral, but realize that since they're challenging my close it'd be inappropriate to do so after the fact. I trust the community to deal with this appropriately, either by reopening the issue or by closing it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I’ll ask you directly, you think it’s not sanctionable to suggest someone has a “reading disability”, nor sanctionable to call editors white supremacists and racists? 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe Ian, Swarm, and Drmies pointed out that certain things were racist and white supremacist talking points. That's perfectly normal to point out at an ANI thread. Your mischaracterizing their statements as personal attacks rather than legitimate commentary on actual content being posted is part of the reason that your conduct in the thread (and now this one) was sub-par.

I do think BMK's comment on the reading disorder wasn't the best, but it also wasn't the subject of the thread, and there was no active proposal to address it by anyone other than yourself. The overall discussion on Jorm's removals had lasted two days, and wasn't going to close with anything being done, so there wasn't a reason to keep the thread open so you could keep arguing with people. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can accept and understand how my interpretation of the use of white supremacist and racist is different from yours. However, I take issue that “because I’m the only one who complained about it, the personal attack of ‘reading disorder’ can slide”. I also still haven’t gotten a response on the intense battleground behavior in that thread in general. There is no reason that it’s necessary to call something a “white supremacist talking point” because no WP policy says anything about that being relevant to content. The responses by Ian and Swarm served only to bully others and stifle the discussion, because nobody wants to be affiliated with racism or white supremacy in any way, and that was permitted to go on for, as you say, two days without anyone calling them out on their battleground behavior. Swarm also later on admits that they will never apologize for attempting to use Wikipedia to RGW they think is happening in the world. I understand I didn’t call it out with the best manners, but ignoring the complaints I made altogether seemed very... odd. Administrators who openly admit they are editing on a topic to advance their personal viewpoint shouldn’t be allowed to edit in that topic area anymore. That happened in this thread and it was ignored. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your complaints were not ignored all together. There was just no support for your position anywhere near consensus to take action. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. When it is obvious that consensus is not going to emerge for a position, and a thread has switched into arguing between people rather than solving problems, the thread is closed. In terms of my mentioning a block, like you said, the way you expressed it was far from "the best manners", and if a logged in editor had acted in the same way, they also likely would have been either temporarily or indefinitely blocked depending on if they were brand new or if it was just a one-off. I didn't because I thought you were on a dynamic range based on how I interpreted your comments. If you deescalate how you are dealing with others, you're much more likely to be listened to, and there wouldn't be any need for a block. If you keep escalating the rhetoric, then you're much less likely to be heard, and much more likely to be blocked-- logged in or not. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute on an RFC

I have started an RFC on the issue of the default composition of group 3 on WP's periodic table templates at Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?

Sandbh has raised objections at Talk:Periodic table#Unacceptable behaviour objecting to the way I initiated this RFC. He writes at the end:

“ The way ahead, as I see it, is (1) cancel the RFC until my article appears on line; and (2) Double sharp and I to agree on a balanced introduction to a new RFC, should Double sharp wish to proceed with another RFC. Failing this I will take up the matter on WP:AN. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC) ”

Therefore, I bring it here myself. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As the other party to this dispute, I await the next step. I pity the poor Admin who will have to waste time on this one. I've posted a last request for sanity and internal resolution, here. Double sharp seems hell-bent on ignoring all requirements for reasonable behaviour. Sandbh (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to Sandbh's request by withdrawing the RFC, so I think this will not be necessary now. Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL 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.

---

Could somebody please RVDEl this offensive revision on Tim Dodd, a BLP? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But next time, please ask for revdeletion on the talk pages of an admin rather than in such a high-visibility venue as this noticeboard. El_C 11:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:UEFAlinks

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.

---

Is this actually a UEFA employee? I wasn't sure what to make of it, I don't see any incident, just thought I should let you admins know, know. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, that's a dubious username. I'll have a word. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Review of Rfp closure by Tobefree

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.

---

Hey all. Regarding ToBeFree's recent closure of my request on Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback, as he recommended, I will request input from other admins here.
I requested rollback on the grounds that I was heavily combatting vandalism and cleaning up after LTA attacks against multiple wikis. During the time that I requested, there was a large backlog, and most requests did not receive a reply until around ten days later, including mine. At which point, Tobefree closes it as unsuccessful citing some various things as follows:

• On 17 July, a concern about an alleged "urge to revert repeatedly" has been voiced by Acroterion on your talk page. It was raised. In error due to the target being an LTA. It was then replaed with the statement that I should report to administrators (which I do frequently).
• On 3 July, in a friendly and otherwise commendable way, you wrote "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" in response to an apology on your talk page. Not even sure what the problem is supposed to be here. A user apologized to me, I reassured him it was not his fault, that is all, right?
• On 24 June, there has been a complaint about your usage of the "minor edit" checkbox. This, granted, is actually a valid point. However, as far as reverting vandalism and such goes, marking it as minor is considered acceptable (rollback requires it as well), nor would I agree it would be enough to decline on its own.
• On 16 March, you have been blocked for what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion that turned out to be incorrect. I was blocked for removing the sandbox header, then unblocked once I explained that I was removing the new user landing screen. Nowhere did the blocking admin even mention sockpuppetry.

From the above, it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading. Per both this and by ToBeFree's own offer, I would like to request re-review from the RfP -- if any other admin has different opinions or comments, that would be welcome. I have made enough undos between then and now that the original request isn't even on my contributions page anymore. Naleksuh (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of seeking input at AN came from me. The full reasoning can be found at Special:PermanentLink/968742860. Both the replies on that page and the request above have been edited after publication, in at least one case after replying. The initial reaction to a conduct concern raised by another user, and the incorrect summary of what I wrote contributed to my negative impression afterwards. Too much, too early, too fast. And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. The declining administrator, not the lack of experience. I see a lot of drama incoming if it starts like this before the permission is even used the first time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. - I told Incagnito that an error from a tool he was using was not his fault. I did not blame my own edits on a tool, which is what it seems you are trying to imply.

not the lack of experience. I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects.

Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else (which was supposed to be the original purpose to begin with). Naleksuh (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The following wall of text is for accountability; I'd also value a third opinion, but I'm practically required to explain mine in detail as well.

Regarding "what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion", that was indeed probably a misinterpretation. I had seen the comment Special:Diff/945792771 in the unblock discussion and over-interpreted Drmies' concerns. The actual concern seems to have been gaming the autoconfirmation system, which can be an acceptable use of WP:IAR. I did this on arwiki when blocked by an edit filter, so I can understand the motivation behind it. However, regardless of the block details, my point is: Having been blocked for these first edits did contribute to the "too much, too early, too fast" image, while not being concerning on its own.

Semi-automated tools can indeed have bugs, like phab:T207701, which can lead to edits that the account owner never intended to make. However, big orange warning messages at WP:TW and WP:HG generally advise against blaming the tool for edits made using them. The warnings have probably been added as the result of bad experiences, not theoretical concerns. Reading "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" on a rollback requester's talk page is alarming and may well have been one of the reasons for the request remaining unanswered.

Having been asked to use the "minor edits" checkbox less often isn't by itself concerning when someone requests rollback, as, as you have correctly noted, rollbacks are legitimately marked as minor edits anyway. However, it contributed to the image of someone requesting rollback too early, less than a month after having received a complaint about the usage of a basic Wikipedia function.

Having received a warning to "Please resist the urge to revert repeatedly" by Acroterion, on 17 July, while waiting for a rollback request to be answered, is concerning. Describing it as "in error" is concerning as well. The discussion at Special:Permalink/968744453 ended with "Report it to administrators, don't just keep reverting." This valid advice is meant to prevent disruption by unnecessary edit wars, since you actually seem to have chosen to revert 6 times instead of making a single report at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:ANEW or WP:ANI about the issue. [56]
This was not purely a warning "in error"; it was about concerning, recent reverting behavior. Referring to it as "in error" today adds to the negative image.

Regarding Special:Diff/968507887, I never said that my review was arbitrary; I mentioned this as a possibility. My reasoning was not "mainly to clear the backlog", my reasoning was "This request has been effectively declined because of a bad gut feeling." Messages like "it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading" and "Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else" directly contribute to that bad gut feeling: When there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects. - I'm not sure how this statistic has any relevance to experience here on enwiki. Different Wiki's, different communities, different consensus, etcetera, etcetera. Past using undo, you haven't had much experience with rollback-like reverting here. (involved, so don't want to comment too much here) Ed6767 talk! 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, carrying on from this, your rollbacks on simplewiki that if carried over to enwiki would be problematic. I'm not completely familiar with the policy there, but your overall consistent and, otherwise, well-rounded experience of reverting of vandalism, is tainted by very few edits or no edits in which you leave UWs, request page protection, report to VIP (simplewiki's version of AIV) and many more issues that can be boiled down to a lack of experience. In fact, you have been asked here to leave user warnings, however, I couldn't see an increase in you warning users following this.

My advice: you should probably just use Twinkle or any other rollback-like tool for now, just to gain actual experience on enwiki and so you actually can warn people without the tedious task of going through the table of UWs, or using the same uw-vandalism1 template over and over again. After you have this experience and have engaged with the enwiki community more, you should request again at WP:RFP/R - maybe even enrolling in our WP:CVUA may be beneficial? Ed6767 talk! 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Small reword Ed6767 talk! 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @Naleksuh: if maybe blunt: you've been here a few months, and already you have an indefinite block on your record, you have a talk page which is littered with advice and warnings from experienced editors and administrators—which you don't seem to take without an argument!—and now you're arguing at not being given a permission at a noticeboard? Realistically, any chance you had of being granted any advanced permission or tool in the near future is quickly vanishing into thin air for as long as this stays open. I don't see what it is going to achieve, apart from garner you a reputation for uncollegiate behavior. And that's the last thing you want, frankly, in a project based on the fundamental premise of consensual community. ——Serial 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, to be fair regarding this thread, the closing admin, ToBeFree (talk · contribs), did suggest that a discussion could be opened here at AN Ed6767 talk! 12:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know; did you think I commented here without having aquainted myself with the background? My point is not the opening of the thread, but the continued and continual arguing. It is that that may harm their reputation, not the mere fact of filing here. Thanks, ——Serial 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the closure - too much, too early, too fast. The reversion I mentioned involved a WMF-banned LTA with which I am extremely familiar. The appropriate response to such an occurrence is not to sit and hammer the revert button, but to contact administrators who have the tools to deal with the problem. My observation was intended as mild advice in the face of good intentions. Arguing about the request fir permissions isn't a good look. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I had thought to initially stop after the first post , but decided that was a bit too WP:GRENADE for my liking, and continued defending. As mentioned by Ed, requesting input at WP:AN was Tobefree's suggestion to begin with. While I should certainly be allowed to defend my own post, I think it is about time to wrap this up now.

While I disagree that two posts is "littered" - the overall point from most seems to be the quote "too much, too early, too fast". While my response to the idea to re-request in some months - as nobody had voiced any problems with my reverts - which is what barrs most people from getting the tool - there is little opposition from re-requesting in a few months. I should also say that I am not trying to start drama - while the noticeboards (especially its /Incidents subpage, but at least we aren't there) are known for holding lots of drama, I was simply trying to get opinions from other administrators whilst voicing disagreement with ToBeFree's closure, as some of his assessments at my contributions were false. However, this does not change the same aforementioned purpose ("too much, too early, too fast"). I had initially planned to request expiry time, however the goal is to make it easier on myself to revert vandalism, not to attack other editors. Unless anyone has any furthur comments, I would recommend closing at this point, as the initial idea to open it has since served its purpose. Naleksuh (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Sweetpool50 needs a good talking about their behaviour, manners and motivations

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.

---

You really need to give this individual a good talking too. They assume no WP:GF. All they do is revert edits back to how they were, even if what was there before was not really any good anyway. They are are the sort of editor who consistently drive new users away. Furthermore their actions are being enabled by this admin User:Berean Hunter who clearly has bias in favor of this editor. Like a good ol' boy sheriff in the old Deep South, the admin steps and does a block after this usual interaction pattern.

1. editor makes a reasonable edit (none which is vandalism or malicious)
2. Sweetpool50 reverts it with a pithy comment "doesn't make sense", "too long", "not needed", "not required" etc
3. editor (and they are mostly IPs) reverts
4. words are exchanged
5. Sweetpool50 goes running to Berean Hunter who then blocks the editor because they have been uncivil.

Now take the Deep South analogy, local cop takes the side of the White person who starts a confrontation. This user Sweetpool50 is constantly making antagonistic deletions all the time, but they are never called out for it. But when someone does take affront they get their buddy admin to block the user who is making the fuss, instead of said admin taking issue with the action that provoked the situation. Thus you've got a bully going around lording it over others with no fear of redress because they know they have an admin has got their back. In fact the pair of them should both be sanctioned. They are using WP:CIVIL in the same way black people have the term "uppity" used against them.

Vandalism should be tackled but based on the deletions that Sweetpool50 makes, they are not doing them to stop wilful mischief. They are just removing WP:GF edits because they don't like them. BAck in April, the got a warning about their behaviour in April but unless they are sanctioned and told to pack it in, inaction is just empowering them and giving them the environment where their high-handedness and, let's be fair, awful attitude can manifest without censure. The last time I had a run in with this person I had to quit for months. Is that the sort of person you want here? What value is there in their contributions? Are their edits as positive and useful as mine? I generally work like a WP:GNOME because I care more about content and information that I do about getting one over on someone else! But more importantly I know I am part of the 1 percent. In that respect, as a One Percenter, I raise my concerns about this one because as an IP (ie to know the prejudice a black person faces in the Deep South), I sadly know there are countless of others editors who fit the profile of this Sweetpool50. They continually ride the backs of IPs reverting people left right and centre regardless of the quality of the edits. If you want to stop the long-term decline of Wikipedia, you need to start putting your house in order and start putting good faith back on the agenda. So start with those who don't show any! 81.141.32.129 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a single diff, but comparing an editor in good standing to a racist in an "innocent" analogy? I sense boomerangs incoming. Grandpallama (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Block reason: y'all's taillight is busted." GeneralNotability (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Without diffs, it's hard to see what you are talking about. Diffs please. -- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, this IP is from the UK, not the "Deep South", as both the geolocate tool and their telling spellings of "behaviour" and "centre" indicate, and they are obviously the same editor as the IP who left this message on Sweetpool50's talkpage. Can an admin sweep up their IPs in a rangeblock? Grandpallama (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, ah Cheshire, the good ol' deep south! Why is this racially motivated now? Seems like a rather weak argument backed with no diffs, and the whole "well I was born X so I know better!" with all due respects just seems awfully pathetic to me in this situation. I don't think a range block is appropriate and will carry far too much collateral damage. This IP range is a large dynamic block used by many BT customers in Chester from what I can tell. WP:BOOMERANG. Ed6767 talk! 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably LTA User:Iniced who edits from that part of the world and has a similar approach to making friends. ——Serial 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Hi, can a check user please review the block appeal at User talk:ShappeAli lodged on 4 July, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User Gutu Bekele creating disruptive 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.

---

• Gutu Bekele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hachalu Hundessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to request assistance with an editor who has been creating disruptive edits on the Hachalu Hundessa page. Based on the edits made by this individual, it appears he/she is of Amhara background, wishing to slander Oromo people in Ethiopia. They have consistently painted Oromo people as gangsters and killers, and victimizers of Amhara individuals. I believe that this is not only uncalled for, but specifically within the context of this article, it is unnecessary to mention the names of ethnicities. Additionally, the editor hasn't used reliable references to support their edits, which suggests they are of a personally motivated nature. werewolf (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, diffs, please :) Ed6767 talk! 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please clarify? werewolf (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, a "diff" (short for difference page) shows an edit which a user has made and the changes, such as what was added or removed. It's useful in AN threads as it can allow admins, who are usually quite busy to immediately see the edits. You can click "diff" next to any edit on a history page to go to the diff page, then paste the URL here. Ed6767 talk! 01:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, right, I knew what diff meant, just wasn't sure what you wanted. Ok, here are the edits made by Gutu Bekele:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gutu_Bekele werewolf (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not convinced that this is vandalism but it's a large number of edits in a short time with almost no communication. As User:Revirvlkodlaku (aka Werewolf) indicates above the edits could be motivated by nationalist feelings. The subject of the article, Hachalu Hundessa, was a singer and activist who was killed on 29 June and whose death has led to disturbances in Ethiopia. Our article on Hundessa was created on 30 June by User:Gobonobo who is a long-time editor. I will leave a note for them to see if they have a reaction to these edits. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This account is rather disruptive. They repeatedly reinsert the ethnicity of Hundessa's wife, change numbers in the article, and characterize Oromo people as gangsters. None of their changes are sourced. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't examined the substance of the edits, but since he is an SPA who does not collaborate or communicate, a simple topic-ban might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender I agree with you on that. What's an SPA, by the way? werewolf (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: single-purpose account. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! werewolf (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Gutu Bekele indef for edit warring and POV-pushing. He has continued to revert at Hachalu Hundessa without responding here, and constantly restores the phrase 'Oromo gangster group'. He seems to be engaged in anti-Oromo editing due to some personal POV. (Hachalu Hundessa was from the Oromo ethnic group). Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff, thank you! werewolf (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet

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.

---

Can someone block User:Ozan33Ankara the sockpuppet of User:AlaskaLava? He was confirmed by a CheckUser, but not blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlaskaLava) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

TheseusHeLl, as stated later in the SPI, Salvio giuliano blocked Ozan33Ankara five hours after you posted here, due to his continued disruption. I will close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya

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.

---

Can someone hist-merge Svetlana Tikhanovskaya into Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya? Govvy (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If no response, try Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Obscenity in talk page

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

---

Please hide this edit [57] which contains insults, Obscenity and threats and bolck the saboteur IP.Also edit summary includes obscenity Thanks.علی مکریانی (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Anti-communist rants

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 IP 62.226.91.180 (talk · contribs) seems to just be going from page to page having little rants about communists[58]. Not contributing anything to the project. 62.226.83.97 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same IP. Bacondrum (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I left a message and link on their talk page. Let's see where it goes from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • About 8 hours after Dennis's post the IP left this talk post on Talk:Demographics of Saudi Arabia that seems to be more tame but similarly weird and ranty. I'm getting really strong WP:NOTHERE vibes. Maybe a partial block from talk namespace would be effective? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Range blocked. This has been going on for a very long time, and there's nobody else editing from this IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Question: how to technically reopen an AfD discussion?

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

---

I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in Angola as "merge into Healthcare in Angola". After a discussion with a participant, I agree that I closed the discussion too early and that it would be appropriate to reopen it in order to generate more comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. Could you point to a resource or explain here how to properly perform the reopening? Thanks Olivier (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Olivier, I came across this thread via the AfD and your talkpage. Given your request, I have gone ahead and reopened the AfD.[59] -- Jack Frost (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jack Frost. Olivier (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki sockpuppets

Hello,

I'm a sysop on frwiki and I found that Donald1972 was blocked indefinitely on enwiki because of multiple accounts. He's also busy on frwiki with the same accounts. I'm not really familiar with meta pages on enwiki, could you please help me find the RCU which identified the socks? Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 08:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bédévore: There doesn't appear to be a public request for CU (here called "WP:SPI"); you can find the rest of the confirmed or suspected related accounts here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Donald1972. –xeno^talk 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: all right. Thanks for your answer. Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bédévore, if these accounts are causing trouble on frwiki, then you might want to consider requesting global locks on all of them. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability I'm working on it actually, that's why I gather reports. :) The SPI results would have helped. Hopefully the cross-wiki abuse is obvious enough. FYI on fr fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2020/Semaine 30#Dialog im Kamptal, Matthias Laurenz Gräff et l'armée des faux-nez, we're heading towards ban. Best regards, -- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There is admin backlog...

At Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. DeltaQuadBot has not performed any revdels on files since June, which allowed the category size to grow to 2,000. What has happened to the robot? Aasim 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Did you ask the bot operator? --Izno (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to. One sec... Aasim 18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Izno Ok done. Now we wait. I did this a while ago, just forgot to reply. Aasim 05:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: It's back now. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I just blocked 86.22.66.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism. Within a minute or two I had a notification saying 'multiple failed login attempts'. Whether or not the incidents are linked or not I do not know (though I suspect they are). Luckily I have a secure password and 2FA. Is there anything further I should to? GiantSnowman 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. That's the whole point of (a) secure passwords and (b) 2FA. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, grand, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, you do not need to do anything. However, if wanted, there is a new preference: "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." That means an IP who does not know your email address cannot troll you in this way. The only downside is that if you have a million emails, you might forget which of them to enter if ever needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a login log?

Again I've had attempts to login to my account. Someone mentioned a login log - is there such a thing? I was going to ask at irc but MIRC keeps disconnecting. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no login log currently on en.wiki. That is something that will hopefully be rolled out to larger projects in the future, but right now we only log password resets. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was dubious since I couldn't fine one after searching. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm sure you're aware of this, but you have the ability to enable two-factor authentication in Special:Preferences for additional security, should you so desire. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: thanks but I did that long ago. I feel secure, just wondering if I could figure out who it was - so many possibilities! Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller TonyBallioni The WMF staff might have access to a login log but I do not think its available to the public or even to the Administrators or Oversighters/CheckUsers 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They do, but the only time I’ve ever seen them use it was in the Ciphers case when they pulled the data from the server logs rather than run a check on ar.wiki, since Ciphers was a CU there. There’s very good reasons that data is highly restricted and almost never used, even by WMF staff. We’re also moving towards logging logins on local wikis, but it’s something that will be deployed on smaller projects first to make sure it doesn’t overwhelm the database. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Hasteur

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 is my sad duty to report the passing of User:Hasteur, earlier this month. [60] [61]

Hasteur ran User:HasteurBot and User:DRN clerk bot, and possibly others I don't know about. Those projects should be transitioned to new stewardship.

--CComMack (t–c) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's terrible to hear :( His bots are still running now unmaintained, so I'm willing to look through the code and if I can manage it, I'm willing to take over operations and management of them. I will add WP:RIP now. Thanks for letting us all know Ed6767 talk! 23:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

His bots are still running now unmaintained Not true. HasteurBot hadn't edited in over a month anyway, and DRN clerk bot was globally locked by Sakretsu (an action I consider to be actively harmful; there was no reason the bot shouldn't be allowed to run, despite being unmaintained, until a replacement bot operator could be found). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I requested that; don’t blame Sakretsu. Stewards regularly lock the accounts of established users that are deceased once it’s known to prevent impersonation or someone else using them. Bots as well since a bot is just an extension of the human. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:DWG shouldn't established users' accounts (generally) not be locked unless there's evidence they're compromised? I don't know where it's hosted, but Toolforge or not I don't think the bot being compromised is any more likely now than usual. The source for some of these tasks hasn't been edited in years[62][63], so I'm not sure there's a reasonable suspicion that the bot was going to break. Should've been allowed to run until there's a replacement imo ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They’re not blocked locally as a sign of respect, but they’ve been locked globally by stewards upon confirmation for the last few years. I can go ahead and update that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding new operations of his bots are on WP:BOTN Ed6767 talk! 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that these condolences (as well as those to come) be moved to Hasteur's talk page. That way his friends and family will have a chance to see how much he meant to the community. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD; Hasteur's talkpage is now cleared except for a "Rest in peace" thread. You, I, or anyone can copy over the messages here (they should also probably be retained here as well so the community can know about his passing) and add them to that thread, bulleting them to match the format there. Let me know if you would like me to do (or begin) that. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved condolence statements to his talk page and attempted to leave any other possibly-relevant to AN discussion here. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hasteur had one live draft in userspace, which I have promoted to mainspace at Louisiana Fairy Tale, though it remains a stub. Those steeped in Americana will find the song described instantly familiar. BD2412 T 16:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Need help with Covid-19 and MEDRS application

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.

---

First and foremost, I'm not aggressive about this situation :) . Please understand that I'm absolutely zen about this.

Since about the beginning of april, there are serology tests going on all around the world. Those are the antibody tests that were criticized at the beginning. I will assume you heard about it. Those tests were highly anticipated and are key to estimate the mortality of Covid-19. The amount of infected cases were at about 10x higher then the confirmed case. I believe it should be common knowledge at this point and that I'm not surprising many people with this revelation. However, here on Wikipedia, those studies were all put on ice because they were primary source and not peer reviewed. Many admins, rightfully so, enforced WP:MEDRS asking to wait for a good authority sources before adding the results in the article. Well, authorities took some time, and the CDC only now confirmed the serology tests. Some intrepid wikilawyers could still argue that the method is only validated for the studies in north-america, but really they all use similar methods all over the world. The CDC looks good enough for me.

We now have months of serology tests done all over the world that need to be accounted in all the articles. More then 23.2% of New-Yorkers, already had an immune response to Covid-19 by may 6. And unless some clever editors wriggled their way around WP:MEDRS somehow, it's not mentioned in any articles. I believe it's only fair to ask here, to anyone who enforced WP:MEDRS to help with all those edits needed. We are lagging behind science by a few months. Iluvalar (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Iluvalar: Thanks for the post, are there any specific sanctions you think need to be adjusted? Admins cannot require the insertion of material, so there's not much the can be done on our end unless there are COVID general sanctions that need to change in light of the recent developments. Beyond that, your best option is to be bold and add the material and/or discussed it with other editors on teh talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to insist, I need help. There is 2,685 articles in the covid-19 project and MEDRS enforcement make it look like a statu-quo. I'm out of Karma here, need help. The vote to enforce MEDRS happened here, it was in a sens editorial and I had my hand in those gears even back then in May. I've already been bold beyond stupidity, you can't ask me to be more bold. It will get me banned. All I can do is show the source and let the admins knows it's been massively underrepresented in all our articles, due to an administrative decision (took here) to forbid preprints. I'm not asking for sanctions, I know the rules, but I'm pointing at it so we can hopefully fix things. Iluvalar (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What the CDC says about important matters related to the crisis is of historic import. What opposition have you encountered? How do you plan to affect an update across multiple articles? The terms of WP:GS/COVID19 are subject to community decisions, so it can be modified, if there is a need. I'm just not sure I understand what you want done, concretely. El_C 00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't want to review WP:GS/COVID19's terms now. It does it job and protect from tons of fringe theories. It's counter productive to rewrite it now, But it did fail in this case. There is no reason to believe that the 3 months worth of editors who's edit were denied will suddenly rush in to fix our own mistakes. The articles will be lagging behind for the foreseeable future unless some sort of initial impulse come from this group. There is no way you can seriously look at me and ask me for the fix. Unless I acquire some sort of authority from this request, but it's unlikely to happen.I want an helmet, some nice white gloves and a cape.which read :"this one is with us" --Jimbo. final offer! XD Iluvalar (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any opposition to using that CDC source, and the prohibition on using primary preprints as sources in no way prohibits the use of secondary sources from the CDC. This has been explained at length to Iluvalar, so I really don't understand what the problem is here or why there's anything for admins to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and no, our Covid-19 sourcing requirements absolutely did not "fail in this case", and the omission of material sourced from preprints was not a mistake. They prohibited Wikipedia editors from using the preprints and required that we wait for a reliable secondary source to evaluate them. That is precisely what has happened, and was exactly the right thing to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Finally, Iluvalar, if you don't stop your battleground opposition to our Covid-19 sourcing requirements, you are going to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions. Please take this as a final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, this disruption has to stop, and a discretionary sanctions topic ban is clearly needed. It will take me a few minutes to find the documentation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban imposed, user notified here, logged here. I suggest this section can be closed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Covid-19 and antibodies

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.

---

So I resume again. We DO have secondary sources (CDC) that support the antibodies tests done back in april. At least in USA. The articles need a serious revamp to account for the fact that there was not 53k cases but 642k infections in New-York as early as april 1. Now, because of the application of WP:GS/COVID19 voted here, All discussions about adding antibody tests in graphs (like this authority source above), in tables, in the lead of the articles or anywhere else relevant, where reverted and killed in the egg. People who were in favor of those changes have been warned to stop or actually banned. I postulate that it is unlikely that all those editors will now rush in and make the extra efforts to recover the objective 3 months of lag now accumulated in our articles. I do believe our rules say WP:DOIT not WP:pray for someone else to come and fix it for you.

All admins should understand that, due to this admin decision taken here, our articles do not meet our basic criteria for WP:V. I DO fully appreciate the retroactive nature of the situation. There were no rules technically broken and blabla, but yet the articles need a serious revamp now.

As stated above, I have fully aware of my karma for the time being and I can't do much more myself. I will GLADLY and voluntarily accept 2 good months of vacation regarding anything related to Covid-19. My message here is done, the source is out. Can we settle for 2 months please ? Iluvalar (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You should attempt to discuss it with the admin who imposed the ban instead of bringing this here. El_C 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this just one long topic ban violation? An admin should warn this user to drop the stick and move on. Valeince (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much. Though I suppose it could be viewed as an appeal of sorts. El_C 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"banned from all pages related to Covid-19". I do drop the stick anyway, it's the point 2nd point of this section. It's an appeal, can we settle for 2 months ? Iluvalar (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to discuss it with the admin who imposed the ban, not with the noticeboard. El_C 23:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The box said "You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard." I'm confused. I get banned for having the best source so far. Iluvalar (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, if you are really going with this as an appeal, then sure. I just think you can get an idea about how to correct your behaviour from the admin who imposed the ban. I'm sorry, but as far as appeals go, it is not drafted in a manner which acknowledges anything about your own conduct, so the chances of it succeeding appears low. El_C 03:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you already said it's an appeal. Sorry about that. Still, did you read what the sanctioning admin wrote to you about the reason for the ban and how to best appeal it? I'm not sure your appeal really reflects that guidance, so maybe withdraw so you can redraft...? That would be my advise to you. El_C 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is not in any way shape or form an appeal, no matter what the OP says. This is a blatant content dispute being argued in the wrong place, by an editor with a topic ban regarding the subject. An admin should issue them a final warning not to do it again, and if they do, escalating blocks should begin. This is one of the most egregiously fast violations of a topic ban I've ever seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  How ? The source I bring date from June 21. How can it have been disputed, how can I be warned not to use it in the past. And on top, it cannot be a dispute, since there was not editors to dispute with at all. The only resistance I got in the past was the application of WP:MEDRS itself. I bring a NEW source from the authority in the domain. Iluvalar (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unban: The appeal does not address the behavioral reason for the ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unban, having spent more time than I should reading through the back-story here. As I see it the ban is in place for good reason—a repeated failure to understand that it's not Wikipedia's place to present the most up-to-date version of news, but to reflect the current mainstream consensus of secondary sources—and neither this appeal nor any of the talkpage discussion around it gives any indication that Iluvalar either understands the policy here, or intends to comply with it. I'm not a great supporter of discretionary sanctions which can too often be misused as a tool to shut people up, but this is a textbook example of sanctions being applied correctly. ‑ Iridescent 05:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment as the admin who imposed the ban: As far as I can see, the gist of this appeal seems to be "We now have a secondary source backing up what some prohibited primary sources (unreviewed preprints) said, so that means MEDRS failed in not allowing us to use those primary sources". And, to me, that is a near perfect example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and as Iridescent pointed out, there seems to be a refusal to get that Wikipedia is not supposed to present the most up-to-date information (even to the point of treating it as urgent that we do so). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  And, for those who wish to review previous discussions, here's a partial recent list:

  • Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 9#Gangelt study
  • Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 10#Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints
  • Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#IFR and WHO
  • Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#One Source to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
  • User talk:Iluvalar#Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019
  • User talk:Iluvalar#Averaging estimates
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need help with Covid-19 and MEDRS application

  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Excellent list if you read it actually.

  • Gangelt & preprints . perfectly sum up the climate. where JMV got a warning on his talk page to stop.
  • "IFR and WHO" the source was properly implemented in the article in unanimity.
  • "One Source to bring them all" the secondary source was already in the article, and no one contest it. I knew it would make people cringe, it was the objective. But... It secondary source is CDC so we keep it.
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_31#IFR Here prior to anything else, Doc james reject a source from Nature.
  • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_32#Possibly_good_news_regarding_the_mortality_rate Here, I MYSELF, pose resistance to antibodies results. in MAY 1.

  Iluvalar (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unban, if it's an appeal - assuming this is a form of an unblock request, then as it doesn't cover the reasoning for the TBAN it's pretty weak (we don't really have a system for showing the Community (rather than a sole admin) made a factual error in the original discussion, but I don't believe it did here, so also not a great appeal on that route). If it's not an unban request, then it's a TBAN violation, so let's go with the former. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I am complaining to Elie plus for harassment here--Persia ☘ 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Persia You must notify the user you are reporting of the existence of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done so. Ignoring how old the user accounts are, they both mostly edit in mainspace, and Persia has almost no experience outside of that (also as shown by the confusion between harassment and personal attacks). That said, Elie plus does have enough edits outside of mainspace that they should know that WP:CIVIL is a core policy. While someone leaving me a "crying boy award" would have gotten (at worst, on a very bad day for me) a slightly annoyed rollback, it was incivil on Elie plus's part. Yes, Persia's nomination of Alireza Shojaian for deletion was a really bad nomination, but that doesn't excuse calling someone a crybaby. Unless either of them finds it necessary to say something stupid or someone else can bring up further incivility by Elie plus or incompetence by Persia, I'm inclined to just leave this at an informal warnings for both of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the bad joke. Them nominating a well sourced article for deletion got the best of me. That said, I will keep an eye on the AfD nomination patterns (which may come across as bad faith to some) of said user. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elie plus: Please delete your message, On my talk page--Persia ☘ 11:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Persia: You are free to delete any message on your own talk page (except declined block notices while they're still in effect but that's not important right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it.— Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Wanggaeparkgae

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

Wanggaeparkgae was blocked by Explicit and the block was (in my opinion) appropriate. Wanggaeparkgae has filed two unblock requests which have yet to be reviewed, but which will almost certainly be declined when they are. Others have started posting on Wanggaeparkgae user talk page expressing opinions about the unblock requests that are true, but which seem only likely to generate more WP:BATTLEGROUND responses in return, which in turn might lead to TPA needing to be taken away. It seems best, now that the account has been blocked, for well-meaning persons to simply leave things for admins to resolve. Perhaps an admin can step in, review the blocks, post a link to WP:UNBLOCK for reference and politely ask others to stay away since even the best intentions can unintentionally generate more heat than any good they might achieve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Salvio giuliano has reviewed the unblock request and dealt with it. For what it's worth, as one of the (two) parties who commented on the request, I didn't intend for my message to really be given much thought by the blocked user; rather, I just thought it bore pointing out to whoever was reviewing the unblock that the position that they had adopted was even more clear than merely one of incivility, and was adopted on my talk page too, not just on the page in question. Of course, there's a balancing act between providing useful information, and just ticking people off for no reason; I tried to strike the right balance with what I said, but maybe I missed the mark. Sorry about that. Either way, matter's dealt with now I've been trying to post this response for the last half hour, but mobile data is playing up... Groan! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think those comments were made in bad faith. I think they were truly made with the best of intentions. However, any administrator reviewing the block would've looked a Wanggaeparkgae's contributions as a whole and would've seen all of that other stuff. So, I think it's probably been better to let administrators deal with the specifics after a blocked has been issued; they will most likely request additional input if they feel it's needed when considering an unblock request. A bland "Please see WP:UNBLOCK for reference" which focuses on the mechanics of being unblocked can sometimes be quite helpful, but going into specifics sometimes can cause things to further spiral out of control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia G5s

Hello, I work primarily on articles relating to Pakistani television, and it seems that many contributions to the topic area made by Pakistanpedia, a banned sockmaster, have been speedy deleted over the years under WP:G5. Many of these seem to have been constructive, and I'd like to reinstate them (e.g. re-uploading missing title-cards for television series); for that reason, would it be possible for someone to send me a list of these (not the contents, just the titles of the deleted pages and files)? Thanks, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any files from Pakistanpedia, but I have not looked at any puppets. Pages commenced were : Bewaqoofian

Dilli Walay Dularay Babu Bharosa (TV series) Mera Angan Saheliyaan Zindaan Tumhare Hain Moray Saiyaan Mujhe Apna Bana Lo - Drama Hum Tv Choti si ghana fermi Aise jale jiya Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Graeme Bartlett. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to restoring any of the Pakistanpedia articles. This sockfarm continues to create new socks incessantly (this is not hyperbole these are just the accounts that have been both confirmed and tagged, there are many many others) in order to continue their promotional agenda. Articles that have been deleted can be created by any editor who is willing to ensure the content is reliably sourced and notable and who have no financial gain in creating the articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply I have a COI? Please note that I only asked for the titles (so that I can see which articles need to be recreated and then create them myself), not the contents (which I would need in order to actually restore them). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@M Imtiaz: No implications intended at all, and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I was actually referring to editors such as yourself when I wrote "any editor who is willing to ensure the content is reliably sourced and notable and who have no financial gain in creating the articles". I just wanted to ensure the intent was to create the articles as opposed to them being restored.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the socks have tried to create many pages too, and there are a lot of socks. Some more pages from one sock : Mubarak Ho Beti Hui Hai Shadi Mubarak Ho Teri Raza (TV series) Ghairat Iltija Dil e Majboor Wafa Ka Mausam Mera Kya Qasoor Tha Gustakh Ishq It may take an hour to go through 84 sock's worth of page creations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Unblock appeal of The3Kittens

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 following is the statement of The3Kittens, who is requesting unblock through UTRS; as they are community banned per WP:3X; I am posting their statement here. I am doing so as a courtesy and offer no endorsement or opinion on the matter. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore and Chestford, it's not necessary to block my account to protect Wikipedia from damaging edits. I'll understand that I will never involve in legal threats, vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit-warring anymore. I also understand that I will never violate the three-revert rule anymore. I understand that I will never involve in evading my block anymore. Please unblock my account, my account's underlying IP address, my account's access to my talkpage, fellow account TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1 and TSMWCFan2. We all will never involve in doing all such threats anymore. I will only make useful contributions. The reason why I was blocked was I put a warning message "Warning, before you read the page, do not vandalize the content, in whole or in part. Those who vandalize content such as removing content networks and shows will be sued by "Sun Group" and "Wikimedia Associations". This resulted RickinBaltimore to block my account. I will understand and promise that never put such warning messages anymore. Please change my block type from Indefinitely blocked to Temporarily blocked.

• I'd like to know who the "we" is who wants to use all these four accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (See below)
• Oppose unblock, endorse community ban, and move to prohibit them from making any further unblock requests via any approach (including but not limited to via UTRS) for six months. The3Kittens has gone out of their way to lie to us. See for example, User talk:TSMWCFan2 where they claim, "I'm not a sockpuppet of The3Kittens", even though they obviously were and subsequently admitted they were. Maybe we could consider the case six months after their last block evasion, though at that point, I'd want to see some justification to believe they have sufficient competence to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - given that we had a flat out lie less than a week ago, there's didly squat chance we could trust them now. Normally I hate appeal prohibitions but actually I back Yamla's thought. A 6 month prohibition from appeals through any route, with that time resetting any sockpuppeting is detected. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock -- this level of meretricious behavior should not be tolerated, and I don't see any meaningful signs of actual intention to contribute to this project. I'd also be curious as to who these supposed "Sun Group" and "Wikimedia Associations" might be, if not something pulled out of their collective VULGARITY OMITTED. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest oppose possible To be blunt: Find another hobby. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Socking to support your own unblock from a socking ban? It doesn't get much more clueless than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC closure needed

Hi, I requested a formal close for an RfC over a month ago on June 15th and it is still not closed. ProcrastinatingReader left a proposed close on June 23rd but never closed it. I made a post here previously, but it was never answered. Could someone please close it? It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that wasn't a proposed close but just a note (to whomever wishes to close) to highlight that the discussion wasn't properly advertised, or for a sufficient duration (having been delisted from the only place it was advertised after one week), for the broad change(s) originally requested. Aside from that, there's enough issues with that RfC (sockpuppetry etc) that I felt it would be worth noting any closer should take extra care to read that discussion, and the previous RfCs, before closing. Adding to these issues is the minimal participation, compared to the much wider participation in the discussion closed by SpinningSpark just weeks before, which was also open for discussion for 2 months (compared to 1 week of this one). Combined, I don't think it's appropriate to assume consensus to overrule the SpinningSpark close (from the two-part RfC, not the no consensus one) based on that discussion. As a sidenote, I also find it strange that the most popular outcome from the previous RfC, which SpinningSpark also outlined in his close statement and suggested testing in a future RfC, wasn't provided as an option in this RfC. Multiple respondents asked for that option again in this RfC as an option. I think this RfC was structurally flawed.

Deferring to WP:ACD: if the previous discussion was relatively recent or the newer discussion has much lower participation, it may not be appropriate to overrule the first one. If it were me closing it, I'd close it as no consensus personally, for all the aforementioned reasons. I think the messiness of that discussion has probably prevented sooner closure, and perhaps my response at WP:AN/RFC has also caused confusion (if people think I'm closing it and haven't closed for that reason, in which case I'll clarify there). Pinging SpinningSpark as the closer of the previous two RfCs for his thoughts on this, and perhaps he might want to close this one as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Do you think we'll need yet another RfC to settle this? I looked at the previous RfCs and tried to limit the options based on that, but the sockpuppeteer and another editor were irritated by that. I'm not sure how to proceed to get this cleared up. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm happy to work with the other editors who responded to this RfC to formulate a better, longer-running RfC if you think that would be appropriate. If you think that is a good idea, it might be best just to close this one as being without consensus so we can move on. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, I'm not one for bureaucracy, but I personally can't see how a consensus can be inferred from this discussion, so another one might be needed. I also considered responses and the main points from the previous recent discussion and I believe they're still applicable currently, though those editors didn't participate in this discussion to reiterate them. Likely they didn't know this discussion was happening. Let's just wait and see what others think. SpinningSpark's thoughts, as the closer of the previous few discussions, would be particularly helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, the bureaucracy is becoming stifling here. While I am sure you mean well, continued attempts to get a magical consensus out of this mess are not helpful. This is one where there have been something like four RfCs on the same issue. There was also some sock puppetry which has made a mess of everything. The original RfC was closed noting that there was consensus for part B [inclusion of candidates who had won delegates] with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. We are asking for a close that respects that as the status quo, without prejudice to someone starting an RfC to reconsider it (and hopefully tidy up this mess). In my view the discussions and events that have taken place since the first RfC has created some doubt whether the consensus might have changed (due to the second RfC and other discussions), the effect being that some editors might want to exclude some candidates who have won only a handful of delegates. It was a messy/difficult close to begin with, and the events since haven't made the consensus clearer. I do not see us establishing a clear consensus without a RfC that clearly addresses the "handful of delegates" issue (if someone wants to initiate one). Can we really not agree to the existing status quo as a baseline, with others able to start a new RfC to challenge that? That is the only way I see through this, but if you see another I think editors would like to hear it. Unless another solution is on the table though, dragging this on in the hope that the previous somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs (here, here, here & here) and other discussions (including here, here, among other places) since are going to suddenly offer a clear consensus is not helping us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, a no consensus close would keep the status quo, which would be the result of the two-part RfC. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. I gather that you oppose my opinion that this should be closed with no consensus, but you also state that the status quo should be continued, which is slightly contradictory? I think you might've misunderstood my comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a bit frustrated. This thing has become a mess and attempting to try to make sense of everything that has occurred and correct for sock-puppetry is not helping us here. I do not like the idea of completely blowing up the consensus that was initially reached. There seems to be consensus that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg should be in (because they are over 5%, won significant number of delegates, or they won a state/contest). The lack of consensus seems to be about Gabbard (and possibly Klobuchar) which seems to revolve around whether winning 2 and 7 delegates respectively warrants inclusion. We have wasted so much time on this already, I would not like to see us simply declare that there was no consensus for anything and ignore general consensus concerning the other candidates there. But whatever we do here, it just needs to happen. A decision just needs to be made, because we have been discussing this over and over again since February. Debating this close, and holding it up does not seem to have been productive to me. Those involved agreed to close it on that basis I described above, lets just get on with it. If a no consensus close is where we are going to end up, so be it. But please can we close this? Delay and procedural wrangling here are not our friends.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I bear some blame in this, too, and for that I apologize. ProcrastinatingReader, the reason why I didn't include the "has >5% of the vote or has won delegates" option is because I thought there was no consensus on the matter at the time. My assessment looking through the past RfCs was that the complexity of the choices being offered was preventing a consensus from being reached. Because the most recent RfC before mine had had a large number of participants, and was closed by SpinningSpark as reaching no consensus, and because SpinningSpark did not say anything about a status quo consensus existing, I assumed that the most recent RfC had taken us back to square one. So, perhaps I don't properly understand under what circumstances RfCs supersede each other. In my mind, choosing a single metric was the clearest way forward, and having both the percentage and delegate metrics seemed unnecessary as it would be no different for who is in this infobox than having the delegate criterion alone. My only goal here is to have a clear consensus that we can point to, and to avoid ambiguous terms like "significant." So, I would be just as happy with the option Darryl Kerrigan is talking about as I would with the delegate-only option. Like Darryl, I really just want to move this forward in a timely manner, so I welcome any advice on how we can identify a clear consensus, whether that's finding a way to make it clear that the two-part RfC represents a present consensus or starting a new RfC. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Particularly, the following comment by SpinningSpark on the complexity of the options in the no consensus RfC guided my thinking when I created my RfC:
  

"RfCs work best when a simple yes or no question is asked, preferably after a discussion has teased out a proposal that might have broad consensus. Having "other" as an option is guaranteed to make the discussion a mess; it's an invitation to get as many different answers as there were participants." — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: Could you please weigh in here? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 21:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The origin of the “somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs” noted by Darryl Kerrigan and which eventually gave rise to this last RfC is explained below. Humanengr (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

[Revised below in view of response by S Marshall — thx] NB to all including SpinningSpark: A close look at the 1st RfC solidifies SpinningSpark's conclusion that In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote.:

• 6 votes were for 'any candidate with a delegate': here, here, here, here, here, here;
• 11 votes were for 'any candidate with a delegate or 5% of the vote: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here; and
• 1 vote was for "top 9 by delegates; and then by popular vote" here.

18 votes (out of 22) were for all candidates who won a delegate (with or without considering the popular vote criterion). (There were also 3 comments.)

It is critical also to note that Smith0124 — who was later (on June 12) revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — voted for "delegate or >5%" on February 26. Then on March 4, the day after Gabbard won her first delegate and while the first RfC was ongoing, the sock interjected this RfC. SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock. On June 7, the sock created a second RfC which S Marshall closed as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it.Humanengr (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not helpful to count RfC !votes or produce statistical analyses of how many editors said what. The process of closing an RfC involves weighting those !votes, and the range of acceptable weights is very broad -- there are circumstances in which a closer can give a !vote zero weight, or 0.0001, or 10,000. Best just to wait for someone to close it, and I do know there are long delays at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thx, S Marshall — I should have merely noted SpinningSpark’s close stated 7 voted 'yes' on part B (for the only criterion for inclusion being 'a delegate') and 11 others suggested the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate.
  • It is critical, however, to note that 1) Smith0124 — who was later revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — was one of those 11 votes for "delegate or >5%", and 2) all the above votes had been cast before March 3 when it was reported that Gabbard won her first delegate. It was on March 4, when it was overwhelmingly evident that Gabbard would be included in the infobox, that Smith0124 interjected RfC #2. (SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock.) On June 7, the sock created RfC #3 which S Marshall closed on June 15 as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it. after the sock was banned on June 12.
  • Again, it was only after Gabbard won her delegates and it was evident she would be included in the infobox that the sock decided to drum up objection to Gabbard's inclusion. That is not a good look for an encyclopedia. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Need eyes on Lynching of Wilbur Little

There were recently some disturbing edits to Lynching of Wilbur Little, which could have been anything from WP:FRINGE to vandalism to good-faith edits. We're a long way from needing any kind of administrative action, but if some more people could add Lynching of Wilbur Little to their watchlist, I think that would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

James Briefcase

This account was blocked for being a vandalism-related account and I noticed that he created redirects to multiple NHL teams. There is an IP who removed vandalism on "Pittsburgh penguins". There are some other NHL redirects with hidden text vandalism, and since he got blocked for vandalism, I request an admin to take a look since being blocked indefinitely can cause an account's created pages to be deleted. Some redirects are improperly capitalized as "REDIRECT" should be in all caps or no capitals at all. If they can't be deleted then I wonder if it's okay to fix it to proper capital letter usage. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless a blocked user's contribs were entirely problematic, we don't habitually delete all of their contribs. If their contribs have problems, you are more than welcome to fix them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about verifiabilty in lists on templates

There are loads of templates that list members of deposed royal families as if their positions still existed, which I think is absurd, but my question is, do entries on templates need some means of verification? Just as an example. please look at Template:Ducal Family of Parma, about living members of a family who lost their positions as rulers of the Duchy of Parma in 1860, when it ceased to exist. It lists about 60 people, about 50 of whom have no articles about them, it just lists them as "Prince" or "Princess" somebody or another, which is ridiculous imo since there have been no Princes or Princesses of those territories since 1860, but that's a (never ending) argument for another place. What I would like advice on, is is it OK to remove all those entries like "Princess Marie-Gabriella" or "Prince Erik" that are not blue linked to articles and therefore we have no way of verifying them? I feel all these templates about members of abolished royal families should just be deleted, but that takes time, in the meanwhile is it OK to remove the listings (there are hundred of them) of "Prince" and "Princess" whosiwhotsis that have no citations, no articles about them, no way to check if they even exist or are possibly hoaxes? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If they are living, WP:BLP is your friend here. If they are dead, well unless there is a reliable source it can still be removed. It just may take more time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, good question, we don't do inline citations in templates but there's no reason they could not be sourced on the template talk page, and any that can't be sourced, removed. Guy (help!) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this thread before removing all the unlinked names in the Austrian archduchesses template, but I (obviously) agree that such information is unverified clutter that potentially violates BLP privacy. It also directly contravenes the standards of WP:EXISTING, which says unlinked items should be avoided in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A similar discussion regarding this concern is at TFD (others may see the current discussion where both I and Smeat have commented).

I have removed the unlinked content in this particular template per WP:NAVBOX/EXISTING. If these templates generally are unsalvageable in any meaningful sense, you can take them to TFD. If they are instead salvageable, consider opening a discussion on one of the village pumps or perhaps MOS:BIO to consider how best to deal with these. I see in the archives there that someone cared about them enough to have an RFC.

This otherwise isn't really an issue for WP:AN as no administrator action is necessary. I would recommend closing. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What about links that are redirects as pointed out at Template:Danish princes?

Unban 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.

---

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Topic Ban Appeal
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#CurtisNaito and TH1980 editwarring on Talk:History of Japan
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

In May of this year, I closed this discussion and lifted User:TH1980's TBan from editing Japan-related articles. I have since become aware of some issues, both with the original unban request, and with the user's editing since the ban was lifted, which lead me to wonder whether my act was an error, and I would welcome a review of the whole situation.

• First, the request for an unban was not, it appears, entirely accurate. TH1980 said in their appeal I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. That is not true: the findings of fact in this arbcom case included that TH1980 has in the past both edit warred and hounded another editor, and it ended up with an indefinite IBan with Hijiri88 - that is a sanction. The assertion that the concerns were about a single article is also not correct - the discussion that led to their topic ban actually concerned edit warring on two articles, Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan.
• One of the concerns which led to their TBan, and which were discussed at considerable length in a couple of ANI threads in the past (see links above), was TH1980 making GAN nominations for the two articles mentioned above without getting talk page consensus to do so - both articles have long histories of edit warring and cover contentious material, and there were concerns that one 'side' had used GA status as a barrier to other people working on content. Since the ban was lifted, TH1980's first edit to Korean influence on Japanese culture was to nominate it for GA, without an edit summary or any talk page discussion. I also note that they requested that the first person who offered to do the review withdraw; not an unreasonable suggestion perhaps, since it would have been that person's first GA review, but it indicated that they were aware that the nomination may have been contentious which makes me wonder why they didn't start a thread on the talk page prior to making the nomination (given the history).
• More recently, at History of Japan, they have returned to edit warring, sometimes with less than polite edit summaries, including doing so on the talk page over a GA nomination.

So, in short, I lifted this TBan on the basis of consensus of a fairly poorly attended discussion on AN, which was based around a request that contained more than one inaccurate statement. Since the ban was lifted, the editor has returned to the same articles, and has edited in a manner that is reminiscent of the editing that led to their ban. I am asking for a review as to whether (a) my original decision to lift the ban was a mistake, and (b) whether it should be reinstated, either on the grounds of the erroneous request, or based on the pattern of editing since it was lifted. Pinging the editors who commented in the unban discussion: TParis, Jauerback, Atlantic306, The4lines, JzG GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• This looks to me like a case of WP:ROPE: good faith was extended, immediately abused, and the ban can be restored. Guy (help!) 10:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think it was the right thing to do at the time. We cannot predict how users will use/misuse a boon. I think User:TH1980 has shown that they need to be away from the articles in question till they can address their WP:OWN issues and show they have learned to collaborate with others. I propose reinstating the TBAN, reviewable in 6 months, removal of TBAN contingent on constructive interim edits and convincingly addressing what sounds like WP:OWN behavior, and an uncollaborative outlook, based on resumed problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with the unban close. I would agree with Deep about the proper remedy now but I would also add a requirement that they link to this thread in any unban request. This will make sure that the facts are accessible for the community when considering a future unban request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring - If you're going to abuse the good faith etc then you can just be re-topicbanned ... just this time around ROPE and Good faith will be much less. Never a good idea to abuse things like this as it never ends well for the recipient. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Re-ban - it could be that TH1980 simply forgot about their other sanctions (logging non-block sanctions is a bit haphazard) and was otherwise being honest, but based on the commitments they made in their appeal which were immediately contradicted by their post-appeal actions, it seems more likely that they intended to deceive the community with their appeal. Either way they immediately resumed the specific disruptive behaviour which led to the sanction, indicating again that they cannot edit collaboratively in the topic area. Write them a new ban which mirrors the appealed one, and include a reference to this discussion in the ban's wording so that this incident is not forgotten. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Propose topic ban from good article nominations - they committed in their appeal to discussing good article nominations before listing nominated articles, and twice (at least) since their appeal they have nominated an article with no discussion at all, and subsequently have attempted to own those nominations (by asking reviewers to withdraw or edit warring over the nomination template). This sanction should allow them to propose a nomination on an article's talk page, but they will be required to convince someone else to actually post the nomination (demonstrating consensus). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support reinstating indefinite TBAN of Japan-related articles, broadly construed, for bad faith in the appeal and for immediately returning to the same problematic behaviours. Edits made to Japan-related articles should be mass reverted, as TH1980's original ban involved such widespread misuse of sources and POV-pushing as to make cleanup an unreasonable chore requiring editors with specialized knowledge.

Also support Ivanvector's proposal of a TBAN on nominating GANs, as TH1980 has a years-long long documented history of using them for contentious ends, and editwarring over them, right up to the present month.

TH1980 is an extremely persistent problematic editor that the community should watch with great vigilance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit: perhaps you should add to the links in your opening remarks TH1980's previous rejected appeal, which was unanimously opposed? Those taking part in this discussion should have access to as much background as is reasonable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I linked every edit I made to the exact page number of each academic source on those two articles, so that the endless controversy over sources and who said what where, which invested those pages, like a plague, would disappear. All the links seem to have disappeared, and once more we now only have to trust the reigning editor's word that this is what the content states. That in itself means this can have no GA aspirations, given the long history of confusion and misrepresentation of sources. What happened? Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize for not mentioning my one IBAN. I thought of it more as a two-way editing restriction than a block, but I suppose I was wrong. I will withdraw the good article nomination if the admins want me to. However, I was never told that I needed consensus to make a nomination. Curly Turkey reverted the nomination without specifically stating what his problem with the article was. He just said I needed consensus, which is an odd thing to say when no one else ever objected to the nomination. I did revert Curly Turkey's edits to the article, but only because they were bad edits. One of them deleted the refend tag for no reason with an incorrect edit summary[64] and the other one added a ton of citation links that led to nowhere.[65] I only reverted once, so I wasn't exactly edit warring, and I don't think anyone would call those good edits. Still, I absolutely won't revert again.TH1980 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, JzG, Deepfriedokra, Davey2010, Ivanvector - I didn't realize that just one revert would cause so much controversy. If I asked for other sanctions, can I avoid getting my topic ban reinstated? I would definitely agree to a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations without consensus. I really want to be able to make constructive contributions in this field. It should be noted that after my topic ban was lifted, I successfully brought the article Korean influence on Japanese culture to good article status. I also substantially improved the History of Japan article. I believe that my contributions should be taken into account here. What do you think about a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations instead? TH1980 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I would still support the reinstatement of the TBan on Japanese subjects, and the introduction of a TBan on GA nominations, as suggested by Ivanvector. Neglecting to mention your IBan in your unban request; going back to those exact same articles that the drama in the past revolved around and basically just picking up where you left off; promising to seek consensus in your unban request, then failing to do that within just a few weeks - it's just too much for me, I don't think a 1RR restriction would be sufficient to give me confidence that there wouldn't be further disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth SummitI don't really like to mention my IBAN in talk page space at all. An undisclosed part of the reason why I asked the original good article reviewer on Korean influence on Japanese culture to withdraw was because he mentioned events/people directly connected to my IBAN. I didn't want to violate it by referring to it. I was wrong to not see it as being like a block, but it was a two-way restriction, so you can understand where I made the error. Anyway, I would never complete any good article nomination until all complaints/corrections are dealt with, but no one ever mentioned a specific problem with the article in need of correction. I always fix all errors that are pointed out to me. I just reverted the deletion of the nomination one time, because I wanted to know what was actually wrong with the article. I will not revert this nomination or any other nomination again, but I also don't think it's fair to interpret a single revert of the incorrect deletion of a crucial formatting tag[66] as edit warring. Do you really think I shouldn't have reverted that? I can certainly pledge to not revert more than once though.TH1980 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TH1980, in two successive edits, you reverted the removal of that tag with a snarky edit summary, and then removed over 5,000 characters of text that another editor had recently reinstated, explaining in their edit summary that the material had been arrived at through talk page discussion. I would find that troubling from any editor at any article; that you did it shortly after your TBan was lifted, at the very article that your editing led to the TBan years ago, is a big red flag. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In the name of good faith, I have removed the GA nomination from History of Japan, and I apologize for my remarks about CurlyTurkey's edits.TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional Comment Why ban me from everything related to Japan just because of the issues I have had with other users at pages such as History of Japan? Why not just ban me from the pages I have had issues with other users? I must protest the excessive nature of this ban proposal, as well as how I've been painted as the bad guy by other users.TH1980 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why exactly should the topic ban be restored? As far as I can tell, TH1980 only reverted each edit a single time, and with very good reason. Like TH1980 said, reverting a horrible edit a single time is NOT edit warring. And if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY? He made no attempt at talk page discussion at all, though a nomination should never be reverted without giving a reason. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment this is a revert of this, and you call Curly Turkey's restoration of the material a 'horrible edit'.

In one fell swoop, TH1980 expunged 32 references to over a dozen sources, wiping them out with the edit summary justification:’some of this could be incorporated, but certainly not now with all the broken citations and other errors that were inserted here.’ (Note the magisterial WP:OWN/WP:IAR tone).

People who edit like that, devastating slow collegial work by massive elisions vaguely motivated. have should not be on wikipedia. They certainly shouldn’t be anywhere near Japan/Korea articles. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY?"—Curly Turkey left an edit summary as to "WHY", and the links and commentary GirthSummit gave above give background to why TH1980's noms have been problematic and require consensus. Note that there is a proposed TBAN on TH1980's submitting GANs at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Per JzG, this is a textbook example of ROPE. The implementing admin actioned the AN consensus correctly ("no quorum" not being an option). t's no-one's fault (except the editor in question) if it is taken advantage of. Seems a simple case of Rope was given > Rope was abused > Rope was withdrawn. Restoring the ban seems unavoidable. ——Serial 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at both articles, though I have an ingrained desire never to edit this area after the utter time-wastage of my experience there in 2015. That area is marked by the disturbance of incompetence. All that TH1980 appears to have done on his return, has been to reorganize the page to present a uniform citational form, while ridding it of links, so that the text that remains can't easily meet the straightforward criteria of WP:V. He never contributed much of significance to either text. It's unbelievable that one can get a GA passed on just a superficial appearance of neat presentation (Potemkin village) effect. I won't go into the details of all of the defects in both, suffice it to go back, if one likes revisiting nightmares, to the archives for the period 2015 or thereabouts. As soon as one touches the mess, reverts are automatic, unknown editors march in to tagteam, and it becomes impossible to work, because they just revert, smear and don't argue their case on the talk page. This area is deeply problematic, so the safest bet is to ask those associated with its travesties to stay away (I include myself there). That's the negative solution. We do need someone with a fair familiarity with the field to begin to bring those articles up to snuff, without the disturbance of idle editwarriors.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In closing, it would be wise to glance at the way a strange support group appeared out of nowhere, with little experience of wikipedia other than desultory shifting of commas to articles, the moment TH1980's editing was challenged.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unbans are cheap, rebans are cheap too. Seems we gave the editor rope...--v/r - TP 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Editor went back the article and acted the same way that got them banned from it in the first place? Does this even need consensus? I would assume an admin would just page block them at this point to reinforce it. Valeince (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Should also be banned from not just Japan related articles but also Korea related articles per Nishidani's comment 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring indefinite topic ban for Japan-related topics, broadly construed. Net negative per Nishidani above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Close?

Thanks all for the review - I believe that there is a fairly clear consensus on the next steps, but I'd be grateful if an uninvolved administrator would please review the above and close this? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We still have not heard from three of the people you reached out to. Can we please wait to close until after they have reviewed this?TH1980 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Willy on Wheels

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

---

User:Willy on Wheels may look like the user page of a banned vandal at first sight, but looking at the contribs this user is not in fact the banned vandal known as User:Willy on wheels~enwiki. Can an admin delete (or at least blank) the user page please? This account was registered as a joke, the creator claims not to be User:Willy on wheels~enwiki, and there is no real evidence or an SPI showing that these two users are the same person. 92.26.50.0 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Their contributions at de-Wiki look like standard WoW crap. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Brian McNeil

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

I heard this evening from Bastique on Facebook that Brian McNeil has died of COVID-19. He was active more on WikiNews (sysop) and Commons, but a lot of us here knew him on Wiki and via social media. Brian was a thoroughly decent man. Guy (help!) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)